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.
Arvind Vyankatrao Tarar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, N ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-02-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.2. The Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has dismissed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C for restoration of Land Acquisition Case No. 19 of 2001, on the ground that it is not maintainable, as the reference has been decided on merits by answering all the issues framed.3. In Land Acquisition Case No. 19 of 2001, the Court decided all the issues after holding that the applicant and his counsel are absent and no evidence has been led to substantiate the claim on merits. This dismissal of reference was on 13.08.2012.4. The petitioner who is the original applicant had two remedies, either to file Regular Civil Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act or to file an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree. The applicant has preferred an application und...
E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Imax Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2015
PC:- 1. This is E-Citys application in an action for an anti-suit injunction and damages. E-City (E-City) is part of the Essel Group of companies. Among their various concerns are interests in the cinema/cinema theatre business. IMAX is a Canadian Corporation, one that specializes in large-format films and projection systems. These have now come to be known by IMAXs name, IMAX. The application seeks to restrain IMAX (IMAX) from executing or taking any steps in execution or implementation of certain arbitration awards; and, specifically, from proceeding with or seeking any reliefs in the execution / enforcement proceedings adopted by IMAX before the Supreme Court of New York. 2. Having heard Mr. Chagla, learned Senior Advocate for E-City and Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for IMAX at some length, and, with their assistance having considered the material on record, I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate case for the grant of reliefs sought. 3. Briefly, these are the fac...
Hirakant Ramchandra Kothari Vs. Yeshodabai Arjun Subhane and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2015
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges order dated 23 March 1989 made by the Tahasildar, Dahanu and the order dated 18 December 1989 made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) (impugned orders), under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (Restoration Act). 2. The case set out by the petitioner is that prior to the year 1957, one Ramchandra Ganpat Kore was the owner of property surveyed under No.214, Badapokharan, Dahanu admeasuring about 2 Acres and 23 Gunthas (said property). As on 1 April 1957, which is the 'the Tillers day' in terms of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act), the petitioner was in possession of portion of the said property admeasuring 1 Acre and 12.8 Gunthas. Despite such position, the name of Arjun Marya Subhane, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, came to be recorded as a tenant in the survey records. In the year ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›