Mumbai Court March 2015 Judgments
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. The Maharashtra Micro and Small Scale En ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
1. BSNL Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) is a Company duly incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act 1956, and is registered as a Central Public Sector Enterprise providing telecom services in India, except Mumbai and Delhi. Respondent No. 1 The Maharashtra Micro and Small Scale Enterprises Facilitation Council and Additional Commissioner (Revenue), is a statutory functionary established under the Micro, Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (the Council) . The Respondent No. 2 M/ s. People Infocom Pvt. Ltd. (PIPL) is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. BSNL has entered into Agreements with PIPL for providing add on services to the customers of BSNL, details of which are set out hereinafter. 2. The present Petition is filed by BSNL under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). 3. The facts which have led to the filing of the present Petition are as under: 3.1 On 9th November, 2004, BSNL entered into an Agreement...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar and Others Vs. Jayashree Jayant Salgaonkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
1. A common question of law arises in these two otherwise unrelated cases. In this judgment, I have addressed only that question of law, but not the respective applications on merits. 2. The question first came up in JayanandJayant Salgaonkar v Jayashree Jayant Salgaonkar (Salgaonkar) when Mr. Snehal Shah, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in that matter, urged that the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in HarshaNitin Kokate v The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd and Ors. (2010 (112) Bom. LR 2014)was per incuriam and not good law. As a substantially similar issue arose in the second of these cases Nanak Ghatalia v Swati Ghatalia, I invited Mr. Ghatalia, the Petitioner appearing pro-se and Mr. Karl Tamboly, learned Counsel for the Caveatrix, to make their submissions on the question as well. 3. I am not in this judgment deciding the merits of the applications in Salgaonkaror Ghatalia, but only considering whether Kokatewas or was not per incuriam. The applications in both ca...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishprasad M. Joshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
1. All the three proceedings are filed to challenge the notice given under section 41A (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Criminal Writ Petition No.416 of 2015 is filed to challenge the notice issued in respect of CR No.24/2014 registered in Ardhapur Police Station Nanded for offences punishable under sections 179, 272, 273 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sections 26(2)(i), 26(2), 27(3)(d), (e), 59 etc. of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and it is mainly in respect of Goa Gutkha and other similar food articles. In this crime Goa Gutkha worth Rs. 8.81 lakh was seized. Charge sheet is already filed but the police wants to make further investigation under section 178(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present petitioner is not shown as accused in the charge sheet but the material seized and information collected shows connection of the petitioner with Goa Gutkha manufacture. 3. Criminal Writ Petition No.380 of 2015 is filed in respect of CR No.5/2015 registered with...
Tag this Judgment!Meera Vishwanath Patkar and Another Vs. Late Premabai Ramchandra Dessa ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal. POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the learned Judge was justified to pass the impugned order holding that the suit filed by the appellants stands abated? 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit inter-alia praying for a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 is null and void as the plaintiffs were the co-owners of the disputed property. Further relief sought by the plaintiffs was to declare the ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Ganpatrao Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioners, by this petition, filed under Article 226 read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge Clause 3 of the Government Resolution No. SSN-1702/9/2002/MA.SHI-2, dated 3.8.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said GR). 4. The petitioners, in this petition, have prayed as under:- (A) By issuing a appropriate writ or order or directions this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare and consider the services of petitioners as part time librarians and further it may be hold that, the petitioners are governed under the Old Pension Scheme i.e. Maharashtra civil Services (Pension Rules) 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1984 and the General Provident Fund which are applicable to the Librarians, who came to be appointed prior to 01./11/2005 and entitled for pensionary benefits ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Vs. The Municipal Council, Beed Through its Chief Officer
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for seeking directions to the respondent Municipal Council to finalize the pension of the petitioner and make payment along with other monetary dues, including payment of gratuity, commutation of pension, etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as are payable to the petitioner. By way of amendment, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the departmental enquiry initiated against him vide letter dated 10th July, 2009, be held to be illegal and bad in law. 3. The brief facts as are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition are as under:- The petitioner claims that he joined the services of respondent Municipal Council w.e.f. 25th June, 1985 in the capacity of Clerk in class III cadre. Upon adorning permanency in the services of Municipal Council, the petitioner was po...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Gateway Park Paper Industries and Others Vs. Arjo Wiggins Chartha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
1. The issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided as per the order of the Division Bench dated 2nd March, 2015. 2. The issue of jurisdiction is framed as follows: 1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the above suit of plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3. 3. The suit is filed by three plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1 is a partnership firm. Plaintiff No.2 is a limited company. Plaintiff No.3 is the director of plaintiff No.1 and a partner of plaintiff No.2. The defendant is a manufacturing company. 3. As per the averments in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the plaint the plaintiff No.2 was appointed as the sole selling agent of the defendant. This was under three agreements dated 30th January, 1978, followed by the agreement dated 1st October, 1989 and then the agreement dated 1st January, 1999, the last of which subsisted between the plaintiff No.2 and the defendant. 4. The agreement dated 1st January, 1999 Exh.C to the plaint has been entered into and signed only by plaintiff No....
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Gateway Park Paper Industries and Others Vs. Arjo Wiggins Chartha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
1. The issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided as per the order of the Division Bench dated 2nd March, 2015. 2. The issue of jurisdiction is framed as follows: 1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the above suit of plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3. 3. The suit is filed by three plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1 is a partnership firm. Plaintiff No.2 is a limited company. Plaintiff No.3 is the director of plaintiff No.1 and a partner of plaintiff No.2. The defendant is a manufacturing company. 3. As per the averments in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the plaint the plaintiff No.2 was appointed as the sole selling agent of the defendant. This was under three agreements dated 30th January, 1978, followed by the agreement dated 1st October, 1989 and then the agreement dated 1st January, 1999, the last of which subsisted between the plaintiff No.2 and the defendant. 4. The agreement dated 1st January, 1999 Exh.C to the plaint has been entered into and signed only by plaintiff No....
Tag this Judgment!Wamanrao and Others Vs. Munnibai (Since Deceased), Through Legal Repre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This writ petition at the instance of the tenant takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the appellate Court in an appeal filed by the landlords under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the said Act). 2. The respondents are owners of House No.54 situated at Itwari, Nagpur. Two shop blocks on the ground floor of aforesaid house were let out to the predecessor of the petitioners in the year 1970. The rent payable was Rs.215/- per month. As the landlords were in need of the tenanted premises for carrying on their business, eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of bonafide need. According to the landlords who were two brothers, they were carrying on their business in a shop having area of 3 ft. x 9 ft. owned by one Rajendrakumar Parmar. Both the brothers were doing separate business in half portion of said premises. As they wanted to expand their business and as they also desired to settle their sons, on 26-3-2002 notice...
Tag this Judgment!Pedro C. D'Mello Vs. State of Goa by the Secretary (Revenue), Governme ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The above Writ Petition inter alia seeks to quash and set aside the acquisition proposed by the respondents for construction of road on the ground that there was no effective hearing of the objections raised by the petitioner in the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for short.) 3. Briefly the facts of the case are as under:- Pursuant to the notification dated 1.9.2008 published in Official Gazette under Section 4 of the said Act, land belonging to the petitioner amongst other owners was intended to be acquired for the construction of a road. Land which was belonging to the petitioner proposed for acquisition was admeasuring 145 sq. mts from survey no. 29/5 and 120 square metres from survey no.29/9 of Dessua village. It is further cont...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »