Mumbai Court March 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.
Parwan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Ranjitsingh Linga and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2015
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out for rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. 2. The main dispute between the parties is with regard to the Law of Limitation. If the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation, the other aspects would not be required to be seen. 3. It is argued on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the suit is barred, the cause of action having been accrued to the plaintiff on 2nd January, 1997 when the conveyance by the ultimate predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff took place with plaintiff's predecessor-in-title one Mehta and Kanakiya. Thereafter on 31st October, 2002 the plaintiff obtained the conveyance from Mehta and Kanakiya. 4. It is argued that the plaintiff was put to notice of the fact alleged in the plaint from that date of 1997 because in the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff the right, title and interest of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title under their earlier conveyance would be made known to t...
Abdul Rahim Khan (deceased thr. L.Rs) and Others Vs. Taj Bagh Committe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4th April, 2003, passed below Exh.9 and 108 by the executing Court in Regular Darkhast No. 289 of 1969. The objections raised to the executability of the compromise decree passed on 11.11.1957 in Section Appeal No. 248 of 1950 by this Court are accepted and the execution proceedings are dismissed. Hence, the legal heirs of the original decree holder are before this Court in this writ petition. 2. In Second Appeal No. 248 of 1950, decided by this Court on 11.11.1957, the terms of settlement were recorded as under; 1. That the respondent withdraws all his pleas against the title and possession of the appellant over the fields No. 43, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 50 having total area 84.92 acres situated at Mouza Bidpeth, Thak No. 175, Patwari Halka No. 28, in Tahsil and Distt. Nagpur, and now accepts that the appellant is the full owner and entitled to possession thereof including the suit land as described in paras 1 and 1(a) ...
Kashinath Naik Vs. State of Goa Through Public Prosecutor and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Taken up finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The brief facts are that the respondent no. 2 has filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short) against the petitioner herein, being Maintenance Application No.2/2013/A, which is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ponda, Goa. The Second respondent is claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the petitioner. According to the second respondent, she was married with the petitioner on 22/01/2007. After marriage, she had gone to reside with the petitioner at Raigini, Bandora, Ponda, Goa. Shortly thereafter, the marriage ran into rough weather and the parties started staying separately. It appears that the petitioner had filed a Matrimonial Petition No.9/200...
Sodexo SVC India Private Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
A.S. Oka, J. 1. As per the directions of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition Nos.3746 of 2014 and 3747 of 2014 passed on 19th September 2014, priority is given to the final hearing of these two Petitions. The following questions are involved in both the Petitions. (i) Whether the Sodexo Meal Vouchers are goods for the purposes of levy of Octroi and LBT? (ii) Whether a Municipal Corporation constituted under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is entitled to levy and/or collect Octroi or Local Body Tax (LBT) on Sodexo Meal Vouchers in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder? 2. The Petitioner Company is conducting a business of providing pre-printed Sodexo Meal Vouchers (For short the said Vouchers). The case made out in the Petitions is that the Petitioner Company enters into a contract with its customers for issuing the said vouchers. The customers of the Petitioner in turn distribute the said...
Ashok Vs. The Secretary, Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally. 2. The petitioner/employee is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22-12-2011 delivered by the School Tribunal whereby his Appeal No. 57 of 2002 has been dismissed. 3. The said Appeal was earlier dismissed by judgment and order dated 14-10-2010 which was quashed and set aside by this Court by its order dated 06-04-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 11668 of 2010. The appeal was restored on 28-04-2011 and was reheard. 4. The contentions of the petitioner in the light of the memo of admitted facts dated 28-01-2015 and oral submissions are summarised as under :- a) The petitioner has acquired the degree of Master of Arts and Bachelor of Education (M.A.B.Ed.) b) He was appointed on 15-07-1991 as a secondary school teacher. c) The petitioner and the respondent-management are covered by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (here-in-after referred to...
M/s. Arihant Construction Vs. Subhash Kesharmal Barlota and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 finally with consent. 2. Respondent No.1 (original Plaintiff hereafter referred as "Plaintiff") has filed Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2014 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Corporation Court, Aurangabad against Planning Authority Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 hereafter referred as Defendant Nos.1 and 2) and present Applicant, arrayed in the Suit as Defendant No.3 (hereafter referred as "Defendant"). The Suit filed is for suspension/cancellation of permission of construction issued by the Municipal Corporation and Assistant Director of Town Planning (Defendant Nos.1 and 2) in favour of the Defendant No.3 on 21st March 2014. The Plaintiff claimed suspension/cancellation of the permission of construction and consequential relief of mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made in view of the permission and also has claimed perp...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwas Vijan Gedam
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) challenges the judgment dated 30.09.1999 in Land Acquisition Case No. 3 of 1993 whereby the reference proceedings filed by the respondent came to be allowed by enhancing the compensation towards acquisition of this Court. 2. Land admeasuring 0.09 R. from Survey No. 651 was the subject matter of acquisition under proceedings of the said Act. Though Survey No. 651 that was jointly owned by the respondent with one Anjana Dange admeasuring 0.51 R, only portion thereof was acquired. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on 17.09.1987 after which award came to be passed on 30.03.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs. 4,108.00 to the respondent for aforesaid land. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter issued notices to the present respondent to receive the amount of compensation. The respondent made an application for certified copy of...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Vs. Selma Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salcete, Margao (Presiding Officer for short) by which the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein is partly allowed and an amount of Rs.3,24,750/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty four thousand seven hundred and fifty only) is granted to the respondent no.1 herein together with 9% interest. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The above appeal is preferred by the respondent no.3 broadly on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer has ignored the fact of the contributory negligence. Secondly, amount of compensation granted to the claimant is disproportionate looking to the nature of the injuries and percentage of permanent disability caused to the claimant and amongst other grounds mentioned in the appeal memo. 4. Brief facts of the case may be stated as f...
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. NEPC Micon Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
1. The plaintiff has sued for recovery of Rs.1.06 crores upon the principal sum of Rs.60 lakhs with interest @ of 18% p.a from the filing of the suit till realisation. 2. The defendant has accepted the plaintiff's claim of the principal amount which was under a bill discounting facility. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 30% p.a on the principal amount from 15th May, 1998 till the filing of the suit after adjusting the margin retained by the plaintiff. 3. The defendant claims that the interest is incorrectly charged and is exorbitant. The parties have been at issue only with regard to the interest in the trial. 4. The plaintiff has led oral evidence. The plaintiff's witness is cross examined. The plaintiff has produced the documents relating to the bill discounting facility granted, the interest defaulted, the payment of interest expressly admitted, the debit note which has been received, but not disputed and the consequent legal notice making the demand for payment of the unpaid pr...
Hazrat Ali Mohamad Gauns (since deceased through LR's) and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal was admitted on 17/2/2006 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether in the absence of framing specific points for determination in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 (a) or Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, could the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court said to be vitiated? (b) Whether the date of the registered Sale Deed dated 16/01/1987 between the appellants and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 be treated as deemed knowledge to bar the institution of the civil suit by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 under Section 3 of the Limitation Act? 2. Briefly the facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: (a) The appellants (original defendants nos. 1 and 2) purchased under a sale deed dated 16/1/1987 a property known as Gorbhata Inam at village Ponda, (suit property) from respondent nos. 3 and 4 (original defendant nos 3 and 4), (b) On 12/8/1996, the respondent nos 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs no.1 and 2) filed a civil sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »