Mumbai Court March 2015 Judgments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saish Shivanand Raikar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant ie. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, against the judgment and award dated 7.1.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Margao (Presiding Officer for short) in Claim Petition no.32/2010 whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 was partly allowed and the learned Presiding Officer has awarded total compensation of Rs.17,16,665/- together with 9% interest from the date of application. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- Claimants have moved the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming total compensation of Rs.39,31,000/- due to death of their mother in the motor vehicular accident. On 20.09.2007 the deceased Nayan, aged about 44 years was pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registrat...
Tag this Judgment!Filomena Fernandes and Another Vs. Alban Colaco and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-27-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.7.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Margao (Presiding Officer for short) in Claim Petition no.186/2009 whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellants was rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- Claimants have filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the compensation on account of death of Piedade Carvalho ( husband of the claimant no.1 and son of claimant no.2). On 25.4.2008 at about 8.30 hours, the deceased Shri Piedade Carvalho was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration no. GA-02-Q-4393 from Dhargini towards Uguem, Sanquem and when reached near Uguem bridge suddenly a tipper truck proceeding from Uguem towards Dhargini driven and owned by respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Amin Vs. Meerabai
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
1. The applicant original defendant has filed this revision against the respondent original plaintiff challenging the judgment and order of Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded, dated 5.9.2011, passed in regular Civil Appeal No.50/2009. By this judgment and order, the Adhoc District Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the 4th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in Regular Civil Suit No.115/2008. Regular Civil Suit No.115/2008 was filed by respondent Mirabai for decree of eviction of the applicant, the tenant. The suit was decreed and thus, the appeal had been carried to the Adhoc District Judge. 2. The applicant claims that, the trial Court had proceeded exparte in suit after the bailiff reported refusal of the summons and had relied on the affidavit of the son of respondent and decreed the suit. The suit had been brought by the respondent claiming bonafide requirement and on the basis that, the lease granted by registered agreement of 15 years had lapsed. The revis...
Tag this Judgment!Sarika Shirodkar Vs. The Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. Shri Ramani, learned Counsel waives notice for the contesting respondent no. 1 and Shri Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for the respondent no. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bicholim, in a complaint filed by the first respondent. The petitioner has challenged the same in Criminal Appeal No. 95/2010, which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa. 4. It appears that a contention is raised on behalf of the petitioner that the signatory to the original complaint, had no authority to institute the complaint on behalf of the first respondent-Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank. 5. It appears that on behalf of the first respondent, an application (Exhibit D-13), purportedly under Section 391 of the Code of Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Nagma Shamu Dhotre and Others Vs. Chandrakant Sakharam Talgaonkar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 30.9.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (Presiding Officer for short) in Claim Petition no.130/1994 whereby claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellants is dismissed. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- Claimants have filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On 14.9.1993 at about 8.30pm, the deceased Shamu Gangaram Dhotre (i.e. husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 to 6) was proceeding to his residential house situated at Fondkulem, Sanvordem,Goa. When he reached near the primary school at Sanvordem, a truck bearing registration No. GA-02-T-6639 driven by the respondent no.2 in a rash and negligent manner, gave a violent dash to the deceased Shamu Gangaram Dhotre. Due to the das...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kaliaandas Daryanani and Others Vs. Natvarlal C. Modi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Heard submissions at the bar. The first appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10-01-1996 passed by learned learned III Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune whereby the Special Civil suit No. 568 of 1993, was partly decreed and the Trial Court awarded Decree in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with interest at the rate of Rs 21% per annum from the date 1st December, 1986, till final realisation. 2. The facts briefly mentioned are:- Original defendants Natwarlal C. Modi and others owned suit property admeasuring five ares out of land bearing Survey No 122 Hissa No. 3, 4A, and 5 with total area of 241 Ares situated at village Karla, Taluka Maval District Pune .They had in the year 1986 approached the appellant(Original Plaintiff) intending to sell the suit property . Oral agreement took place. The Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). The Defendants agreed to give clear ma...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through it's Divisional Manager, S.V. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
V.K. Jadhav, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner is seeking issuance of writ or order quashing and setting aside the compromise recorded below Exh.16, by the LokAdalat held on 3.3.2013 at Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.365 of 2012 and consequential Award below Exh.18 dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are as under: The Respondent no.1/original claimant had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.365/2012 in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six lacs) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident on 9.4.2012 against the owner, rider and the present petitioner, who is the insurer of the said motorcycle. The Respondent No.1/original claimant was the pillion rider on the motorcycle at the time of alleged accident. According to the petitioner, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Caetaninho Julio Barreto Vs. State Through Police Inspector and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. By this Criminal Revision Application, the original accused is challenging the order dated 01/12/2014, by which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji has directed a charge under Sections 306, 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) to be framed against the applicant. 5. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the Revision Application, may be stated thus: That the applicant was married with now deceased Fatima Pereira on 20/09/2008. It is said that the deceased was highly educated and was working as a Lecturer in Mathematics. According to the prosecution, the marriage ran into rough weather shortly thereafter and the parties started staying separately from 27/11/2008. While the deceased Fatima was staying with her father Thomas Pereira, she committed suicide by hangi...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Laxman Mankar died, through his L.Rs. and Others Vs. Dattatraya ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition is by the plaintiff-landlord. The petitioner-landlord, on or about 14th December 1978 filed Regular Civil Suit No.914 of 1978 in the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar against the respondent in relation to the suit property in which the respondents are inducted as tenants. It is claimed by the petitioner that the suit property is located in Ward No.1, bearing City Survey No.52, Municipal House No.5806. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the defemdants-tenants are in possession of three rooms on the ground floor of which possession was sought. The possession was sought mainly on the ground of nuisance and annoyance i.e. Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House rates control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity), bona fide need i.e. Section 13(1)(g), willful default Section 12 (3) (a) and 12 (3) (b) of the Act. 2. The said suit was resisted by the tenant by filing writ...
Tag this Judgment!Warna Valley Sahkari Kharedi Vikri Society Limited Vs. Ashok J. Gaikwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition questions the order dated 6 February 2015 made by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Islampur, dismissing the objections raised by the petitioner-judgment debtor vide Exhibit-79 as being unsustainable and directing the issuance of Possession Warrant under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 2. The respondents or their predecessor-in-title had let out the property in-question to the petitioner. In the year 1987 or thereabout, the respondents instituted Regular Civil Suit No.566 of 1987 seeking recovery of possession of the suit property in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Islampur. The suit was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29 March 1997 and the petitioner herein was directed to hand over two rooms from out of the six rooms comprising the suit property to the respondents. The appeal against the decree was dismissed by the Appeal Court on 25 August 2006. The second appeal was withdrawn on 26 Augu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »