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.
Sangappa V. Tenginakai (Major) Vs. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
1. Present appeal is preferred by the claimant against the Judgment and Award passed by the Presiding Officer, M. A. C. T., Mapusa dated 17th October, 2011, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 35 of 2009. The facts leading to the present appeal may be summarized as follows: (Parties are referred to their original status) 2. On 04/11/2007 at about 10.30 a.m. the applicant was proceeding from Camarcazana to Mapusa market by walk. When he reached near Bamboo Palace Hotel at Bhilwan, Mapusa, at that time one Honda motorcycle bearing No. GA 03 - D 1106 driven by respondent No. 3 came with a high speed and dashed against the backside of the applicant and therefore the applicant thrown away on the road and sustained waist pain and leg pen. After the accident applicant had taken treatment in Asilo Hospital, Mapusa. 3. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 was the owner and respondent No.1 was the insurer of the vehi...
Babasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2) The petitioners' objection to their exclusion in the voters' list of the society-respondent No.4 have been considered/accepted by the Returning Officer-respondent No.4, in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. However, by the present petition, the action of respondents of finalising the voters' list by deleting the other 804 members has been challenged and thereby sought declaration that the final list of the voters published on 20 January 2015 be declared as illegal and bad in law, further pray to prepare and republish the revised final voters' list, who have been members in the list of voters as on 31 October, 2012. Thereby, also pray to set aside the communication dated 17 January, 2015. The prayer is also made to stay the process of election programme as declared by respondent No.5 on 13 January, 2015 based upon the impugned final voters' list...
Ramesh Jairamdas Jaising Vs. Shri Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Oral Order: 1. One Ms. Jaiwantiben Jairam Jaising passed away on 26th January, 2002 (deceased) leaving behind her last Will and Testament dated 13th December, 1997 (the said will). Respondent No. 1 Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and his son Respondent No. 2 Ravi Bansi Jaising were the executors appointed under the said will of the deceased. The present Petition is filed by one of the beneficiaries/legatees under the said Will seeking removal/discharge/suspension of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as executors of the said Will in view of the facts and circumstances more particularly set out in the Petition, for appointment of another executor in place and instead of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and for other reliefs more particularly prayed for therein. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are the beneficiaries / legatees under the said Will and are supporting the Petitioner. 2. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, Respondent No.1 Bansi Jaising filed his affidavit dated 7th January, 2015, setting out details pert...
Suresh Vitthal Pawar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
A.S. Oka, J. 1. As the question arising in these two petitions is more or less identical, the same are taken up together for final disposal. 2. The State Government has issued a Government Resolution (for short `GR') on 17th November 1994 in relation to earthquake affected persons. The said GR notes that as per the recommendations of Mandal Commission, the issue of providing reservation for the earthquake affected persons in the Government employment was considered. The said GR records that there is a reservation provided for project affected persons in the employment. It was resolved that in the 5% quota reserved for project affected persons, a reservation should be provided even for earthquake affected persons. There is a further GR dated 9th August 1995. The said GR refers to the earlier GR dated 17th November 1994. It provides that the reservation for earthquake affected persons will be monitored by the District Collectors who shall examine the matters and take appropriate decision...
Vilas @ Pankaj and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
A.M. Badar, J. 1. This appeal by convicted accused is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-2-2012, passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 131/2011, thereby convicting appellants / accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for the sake of brevity) and directing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, appellants / accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, each, and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month, each. 2. The facts projected from Police report leading to the prosecution of appellants - accused are thus:- a) Appellant - ...
Amina Bi Shaikh Vs. Chief Officer Bicholim Municipal Council and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for hearing. 2. A short issue that arises in this petition is whether the Municipal Council, while deciding an application for building permission can entertain the claim of a third party as regard access and refuse building permission, by adjudicating upon the issue of access. 3. The petitioner is a owner of the property situated at Village Bicholim, Goa. The petitioner was desirous of carrying out construction in the property. On 1 February 2008, she applied to the Chief Officer of Bicholim Municipal Council for building permission. The application was filed along with endorsement, questionnaire duly signed by the petitioner and the Civil Engineer, estimate for the proposed construction, Form I and Form XIV, schedule 2 and a copy of the plan. On 16 September 2008, the office of Deputy Chief Engineer granted permission to the petitioner. As per the procedure the matter came for consideration of...
Narayan Parsekar Vs. Umavati Mahadev Hadfadkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the District Judge, Mapusa dated 7 February 2014, Additional Director of Panchayats dated 23 January 2012 and Deputy Director of Panchayats dated 1 February 2006, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner in respect of construction carried out by the respondents no.1 and 2. 3. The petitioner is owner of a property situated at Mandrem, Pernem, Goa along with a residential house and a hospital. On the east side of the petitioner's property is a property owned by one Gurunath Shetye, part of which is occupied by the respondents no.1 and 2. The petitioner filed a complaint to the Village Panchayat, Mandrem that the respondents no.1 and 2 were illegally extending construction of their house beyond the original plinth, touching compound wall on the eastern side and the foundation of the house was damaging the compound of the ...
Mabel Reeves Vs. Confraria de Igreja de Cortalim, represented by its a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 9 February 2015, the petition was directed to be taken up for final disposal. Respondents are served. Accordingly, petition is taken up for disposal. 2. By this petition, the petitioner-plaintiff challenges the impugned order dated 15 April 2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint. 3. The petitioner had sought three amendments in the plaint. The first amendment was correction of the numbers of the defendants, second amendment was to state that one Alberto Reeves had acquired co-ownership right in the property after the death of his mother Mrs. Deodita, and his siblings, and the third amendment was to include a prayer that, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that defendants have no right and are in possession, possession of the property be delivered to the plaintiff. 4. To appreciate the nature of the ame...
Lawrence Salvador D'Souza Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the scrutiny committee, dated 29-30.12.2014 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to the East Indian Christian Community. The petitioner also challenges the consequential order disqualifying the petitioner as the Corporator of the Thane Municipal Corporation. Few facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are stated thus: The petitioner and the respondent no.5 contested the election to the Municipal Corporation, Thane on a post reserved for the other backward classes. The petitioner claims to belong to East Indian Christian Community, which falls in the other backward classes. The caste claim of the petitioner was sent to the respondent no.2-scrutiny committee for verification and the scrutiny committee on a consideration of the material on record, va...
Seemaben @ Shamuben Shankar Patel Adult alias inhabitant Vs. otibhai K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 05.08.2013, granting various claims made by the respondents. The petitioner was the original petitioner before the learned arbitrator. The respondents herein were the original claimants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the present petition are as under: 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is an illiterate lady, who was born and brought up in a village known as Gadh, district Banaskata, State of Gujarat and had never attended any school. She was married to Shankarlal K. Patel , who was also resident of the adjoining village known as Vendancha, District Banskata, State of Gujarat. The petitioner does not know to write or read English, Gujarati, Hindi language or any other language. She also does not even know to subscribe her signature except for affixing her thumb impression. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »