Mumbai Court February 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.
CMC Limited Vs. Unit Trust of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Act'), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral awards rendered by the arbitral tribunal on 7th February 2008 and 3rd November 2009 allowing some of the claims made by the respondent and rejecting the counter claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner was the original respondent in the statement of claim and was claimant to the counter claim before the arbitral tribunal. The respondent herein was the original claimant to the statement of claim and original respondent to the counter claim before the arbitral tribunal. 3. On or about 23rd October 1992, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement by which the respondent awarded job of its 'Information Technology Upgrade Project' comprising of (i) Project Management, (ii) Software Development and Implementation, (iii)Networking ...
Francisco Xavier Rose Almeida and Others Vs. Antonio Columban Wilson d ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 20th January, 2009, on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether it was necessary for the courts below to have framed a issue/point for determination as to which party was in possession of the disputed portion? 2. Whether the courts below should have considered the evidence on record to find out which party was in possession and that having not been done, whether the judgment and order passed by the courts below should be said to be perverse? 3. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is a boundary dispute between the property belonging to the appellants and the respondent as, according to him, the property of the appellants is surveyed under No.58/9 of village Sernabatim and a portion thereof is surv...
Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
P.C.: 1. When these matters were listed for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench noticed that the Registry of the Original Side has not placed the affidavit in reply before the Court which is stated therein to have been filed on 20 January 2015. The learned Judges therefore made observations that inconvenience was caused to the Judges and the litigants on such lapses and therefore, passed the following order on 28 January 2015: "2. Let the Prothonotary and Senior Master and Registrar, High Court, Original Side proceed against the Master and Assistant Prothonotary (Judicial) and supporting staff about the lapses on their part, which are indeed serious. Let written warnings be issued to all of them and an entry be made to this effect in their confidential records." 2. For the purpose of compliance with the above directions, the matter was placed by the Registry before the Chief Justice on the administrative side and the Chief Justice directed the matter to ...
Baburao and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
Oral Judgment: [S.S. Shinde, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 2. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed praying therein for quashing and setting aside the Private Complaint M.A. No. 98/2013 filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, District Latur and the First Information Report No.173/2014, which is registered with the Ahmedpur Police Station as per the directions issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur, under Section 156 [3] of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable under Section 464, 465, 472, 420, 120 [3], 193, 203 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code to the extent of Petitioners. 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that, Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the persons, who were serving in the Municipal Council, Ahmedpur at the relevant time and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are retired from services in the month of February, 2012 and in the Year 2013, respectively. The Petitioner No.3 is still in ...
CEAT Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
P.C.: 1. These Appeals by the Assessee challenge the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, dated 24th January, 2014. 2. Since perusal of this order reveals that there are substantial questions of law, we proceed to admit these Appeals on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that interest is payable on differential duty arising on finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in not following two binding precedents of this Court reported at Ispat Industries 2010 (259) ELT 662 (Bom.) and Tata Motors Order dated 1.2.2012 in Central Excise Appeal No.54 of 2011? 3. Since extensive arguments of both sides have been heard, by consent of parties, we proceed to dispose of these Appeals finally. 4. The facts necessary to appreciate the arguments ...
Sambha and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 75 of 2002 were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded on 19.3.1999 in Regular Criminal Case No. 734 of 1995. They were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count they were sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count they were sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days. The applicants were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count they were sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1...
Harish Brijmohan Loyalka and Another Vs. Dileep Balkrishna Nevatia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Mr. Nevatia, the Defendant is the Applicant in this Notice of Motion. He appears pro se. His Notice of Motion is, in my view, thoroughly misconceived. It seeks the dismissal of the suit. This is a contested testamentary suit for probate of a Will allegedly dated 17th June 2009 of the Defendants mother, one Snehalata Nevatia (Snehalata). I use the word allegedly not because there is any as yet any factual or legal point in favour of Mr. Nevatia, but only because this matter is yet to reach final hearing and to be decided.2. It is not in dispute that probate is sought not in respect of the original testamentary writing but a copy. That is the position as it obtains today. Mr. Nevatia points out that the Petition as originally filed did not make any reference to a copy of the will. The Petition said only that the Will had been handed in separately for being filed and kept in safe custody with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. The Petition was filed on 23rd...
Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Laxmikant D. Naik Kar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Kholkar, learned Counsel for the respondents/Cross-objectors. 2. The above appeal and cross objection have been filed against the judgment and award dated 04/07/2010 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-I, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 39 of 2010. The respondents of the appeal, who are the cross-objectors, were the applicants in the said Land Acquisition Case, whereas the appellants were the respondents therein. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case. 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 16/12/2004 and in two news papers (Sunaparant and Herald) dated 18.12.2004, land was acquired for the work of improvement and widening of road from old survey office to T.V.S. Show R...
Vandana Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment: (P.N. Deshmukh, J.) 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 8th of October, 2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandapur in Sessions case No.124 of 2011, by which appellant/accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Briefly, it is the case of prosecution that accused/appellant Vandana committed murder of her husband Yogesh Mankar on 7th of July, 2011 at 6.30 p.m. in their house. Said fact was informed telephonically to PW 2 Ramesh Mankar, brother of deceased, the complainant who visited the spot and found deceased lying in the pool of blood while appellant was present in the house sitting in the kitchen door. On enquiry, appellant stated to PW 2 Ramesh that her husband used to suspect on her character and thus used to raise quarrels and beat her and for that reas...
Gangadhar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
1. First informant Gangadhar S/o Ganpat Bhalerao has approached to this Court since he is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 11/07/2002 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, district Ahmadnagar in Sessions Case No. 81/2000, by which the learned Judge of the trial Court acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief, the prosecution case can be narrated as under. 2. Daughter of first informant by name Rekha was married on 12/05/1995 with accused No. 2 Sanjay. Accused No. 1 Bhaurao and accused No. 3 Umabai are the parents of accused No. 2 Sanjay, whereas accused No. 4 Ranjana is married sister of Sanjay and accused No. 5 Jalindar is her husband. Accused No. 6 Sandip is brother of accused No. 2 Sanjay. After marriage, Rekha started cohabiting with accused No. 2 Sanjay at Akole. She was subjected to the atrocities at the hands of the accused for fulfillment of their illeg...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »