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.
Anil Vs. Jashrath and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2015
1. The present Revision Application has been filed by Petitioner Anil Gangekar who was Defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 1986 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 8. On death of some of the original plaintiffs, their legal heirs were brought on record. Respondent No.9 was original Defendant No.2 who was arrayed in the suit along with the present Applicant as tenant in the suit premises. The suit was decreed against the present Applicant and Respondent No.9 original Defendant No.2 (hereafter referred as "Defendants"). Respondent Nos.10, 11 and 12 were formally arrayed as Defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the suit by the Plaintiff as they were not available to sign the plaint when the suit was filed. I will refer to contesting Landlords as Plaintiffs. 2. The suit was brought by the Plaintiffs on various grounds but came to be decreed only on the ground of non use of the suit premises without reasonable cause, for the purpose for which the same were let for continuous period of six months prec...
Sanjay @ Papdya @ Pawan @ Prashant @ Rahul Kale @ Pawar Bhosale @ Chav ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2015
Oral Judgment: (Per P.N. Deshmukh, J.) 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29th of November, 2011 passed by learned Extra Joint (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.5 of 2010, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 396 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that PW 3 Riddhishwar Warjukar, the complainant, was doing money lending business at village Mohadi, Tq. Nagbhid, Distt. Chandrapur. On 3rd of November, 2003, he was at Nagpur with his family members leaving his mother Kasabai (deceased) and two servants being PW 1 Kewalram Dadmal and PW 2 Yadav Dudhkute in the house at Mohadi. It is alleged that in the night intervening 3rd of November, 2003 and 4th of November, 2003 at about 1.00 am, 20 to 25 persons having armed with sticks and other weapons, in order to commit dacoity, entered th...
Ishtaque Ali Sayyad Ali Vs. Maharashtra State Wakf Board, Through its ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2015
1. The Applicant filed Application under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 against orders dated 16th May 2012 passed under Section 54 of the Waqf Act in Case No.54/417/2010 by the Chief Executive Officer (for short C.E.O.) of Maharashtra State Waqf Board, at Aurangabad. The C.E.O. held the Applicant as trespasser and directed him to handover the property in dispute. In the Application filed before the Waqf Tribunal, the Applicant claimed that he was not a trespasser and he was tenant who inherited tenancy, of the shop in dispute, from his father. 2. Area admeasuring 13 ft. X 12 ft. out of City Survey No.885 admeasuring 51 Sq. Meters, belonging to Barabhai @ Andarpura Mohalla Trust, Amalner, DistJalgaon, which is a Waqf is in dispute. The Applicant claims that father of the Applicant was inducted in such portion as a tenant in the shop more than 50 years before and in his life time the father was the tenant. After the demise of the father, the Applicant is in possession of the said pr...
Jamboo Kumar Jain and Another Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'), the petitioners seek to impugn the arbitral award dated 19th October, 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator granting certain claims in favour of the respondent no.1. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioners and respondent nos. 2 to 5 were the original respondents in the arbitral proceedings whereas respondent no.1 was the original claimant. Prior to 2009 the respondent no.1 had granted working capital term loan facility of Rs.3 crores, purchase invoice discounting facility of Rs.4 crores and sales invoice discounting facility of Rs. 3 crores to M/s.Nanesh Foods Ltd., formerly known as Samta Foods Limited. 3. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that as on 30th November, 2009 the said company was liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,33,32,108/- to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 raised a dema...
Kumar's Liquors and Beers Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. BDA Limited and An ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. All these Appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arise out of a common judgment dated 11.10.1999, delivered by 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, in Special Civil Suit No. 375/1995, and Special Civil Suit No. 183/1997. 2. Special Civil Suit No. 183/1997 was filed by the appellant in First Appeal No. 282/2000 and First Appeal No. 283/2000, namely, Kumar's Liquors and Beers Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as Kumar Liquors], claiming refund of security deposit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore) from the defendant in that suit, namely, BDA Limited [hereinafter referred to as BDA Limited]. That Suit was initially filed at Secunderabad City Civil Court vide Original Suit No. 427/1994 and came to be transferred to Aurangabad for its trial along with Special Civil Suit No. 375/1995. Special Civil Suit No. 375/1995 was filed by BDA Limited against Kumar Liquors, for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,93,73,919.46, towards the ...
Shamrao Balwantrao Kedar Vs. Suman Balu Thorat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks deletion of the Respondent Nos.2 to 6. The said Respondents are accordingly deleted at the risk of the Petitioner. 2. Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 8-10-2014, passed by the Learned District Judge-4, Nashik, by which order, the application Exhibit 36 seeking amendment of the Appeal Memo in Civil Appeal No.222 of 2012, came to be rejected. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus. The Appeal in question i.e. Civil Appeal No.222 of 2012 is directed against the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.395 of 1989 for specific performance of the contract. The Suit in question was dismissed. Against the said decree of dismissal, First Appeal No.765 of 2006 came to be filed. Since at the relevant time in the year 2006 this Court had the jurisdiction, the ...
Bharat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed on 06.4.1999 in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1992, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: (a) The incident, in this case, had taken place in the early morning of 09.11.1991. At that time, the prosecutrix was residing with her parents and brothers at village Yermal. The appellant was also residing in the same village. Since he had developed love affair with the prosecutrix, it was decided by them that he would come to her house in the morning of 9.11.1991 and take her to Adilabad. As per the plan, the appellant arrived outside the house of the prosecutrix and made a sound call in the language already decided by the two. The prosecutrix responded. She came outside...
Jaywant Govindrao Sanap Vs. Janki Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
1. The writ petition is filed by the employee challenging the order passed by the School Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner upholding the order of termination of his services by the respondent no.1 Management. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner had been in the employment of the respondent no.1 Management since 1999 and was promoted as the Headmaster of the School administered by the respondent no.1 Society, on 1.7.2004. The Education Officer had granted approval to the promotion of the petitioner as the Headmaster of the School. The respondent no.1 Management issued the statement of allegations to the petitioner on 27.10.2008 making 14 allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner had given his explanation in the matter, however, the respondent no.1 Management was not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner and decided to conduct enquiry. The respondent no.1 Management nominated Sau. Shobha Digambar (President of the respondent...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Viran Gyanlal Rajput and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
Smt. I.K. Jain, J. 1. The Confirmation Case No.3 of 2014 arises out of the reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, Raigad, in Sessions Case No.8 of 2013 for confirmation of death sentence awarded to Appellant/accused Viran Gyanlal Rajput. By the Judgment and Order dated 25/06/2014 in Sessions Case No.8 of 2013, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to capital punishment of death. By the very same Judgment and Order, accused was also convicted under Section 366 IPC, Sections 10 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act, 2012') and Section 201 of IPC, as follows: (i) Section 366 IPC - R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-; in default further R.I. for a period of one year. (ii) Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 - R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-; in default further R.I. f...
Vijay Ganpat Mogre and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra through the Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard finally with the consent of Shri Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Kalangiwal, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Kale, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 and Shri Kothari, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has approached for declaration that award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/65/2005-2006, Mouza Khutala, District Chandrapur, on 15.03.2008 is illegal and void. The other prayer is to declare that after purchase notes issued under Section 49, the land acquisition proceedings could not have been initiated at all. 3. This Court has heard the parties on 28.10.2014 and passed the following order: Heard for some time. The question is why Legislature has made two provisions in Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 i.e. Section 49 and section 127. Whether the recourse to section 49 is permissible only to get land removed from reser...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »