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.
Keshav Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Oral Judgment: (I.K. Jain, J.) 1. The Appellant/ original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedpur in Sessions Case No.75 of 2011 (New), 32 of 2010 (Old). By the said judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused/ appellant as under:SectionsSentence302 read with 34 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.392 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month.201 read with 34 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the substantive sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently. 2. For the sake of convenience we shall refer the Appellant as he was referred before the trial court i.e. original accused. 3. The p...
Vijaylaxmi Anandrao Mujumdar and Others Vs. Mumbai Building Repairs an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Oral Judgment: (Chief Justice): 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the communication dated 6 July 2007 (Exhibit-C) of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (a unit of MHADA) (hereinafter referred to as the Board) calling upon the petitioners to surrender built up area admeasuring 26.84 sq.mtrs. to the Board as surplus area as per Third Schedule to Maharashtra Housing and Area and Development Act, 1976 (MHAD Act). During pendency of the petitions, the petitioners were asked to challenge the same in appeal. The petitioners' appeal came to be rejected by an order dated 25 January 2012 of the CEO and Vice President of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the said appellate order also. Since the impugned communication was based on condition no.22 of the NOC dated 27 September 2006 (Exhibit-B) issued by MHADA for the purposes of redevelopment of t...
Tatva Global Environment (Deonar) Ltd. Vs. The Municipal Corporation o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
1. By the present Application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the said Act), the Applicant seeks appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the ApplicantTatva Global Environment (Deonar) Limited and the Respondent The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, arising out of the Agreement dated 31st October 2011. 2. The Applicant and the Respondent had on 31st October 2011, entered into an Agreement titled as Concession Agreement between Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as MCGM) and Tatva Global Environment (Deonar) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said Agreement). As per the terms of the said Agreement, the Applicant was required to take over the Deonar dumping ground (the said land) belonging to the Respondent and was required to construct on the said land a plant for processing of garbage at the site. The Respondent had an obligation to lease the said land in question to the Applica...
Hazrat Ali Mohamad Gauns (since deceased through LR's) and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
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...
The Amravati Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.10.1999 in Writ Petition No. 1055/1999 is, questioned by the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal came to be admitted on 22.10.1999 and on 16.10.2000, this Court granted interim stay in terms of prayer clause (a), thereby staying the operation and effect of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2. Shri Kalmegh, learned counsel for the appellants points out that Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by a local authority/planning authority for Amravati Municipal Corporation area and by a Competent Authority under the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act for short). The appellant no.2 is a Competent Authority empowered under Section 3 of the 1971 Act. In exercise of that power, and after recording satisfaction un...
Sneha Saularam Bankar and Others Vs. Hanumant Vaman Pednekar and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, by which the claim petition of the claimants has been dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: 3. The parties are referred to their original status. 4. The claimants have filed the petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.6,40,000/-. The claimant no.1 is the widow of deceased Saularam and the claimant nos. 2 to 4 are his minor daughters. 5. On the day of the accident i.e. on 29.11.2006 at about 19.00 hours the deceased Saularam was walking on the road leading from Morjim to Tembwado-Mapusa after alighting from the bus. At the relevant time of the accident, the bus bearing registration No. GA-01-U-1262 came from opposite side in a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and gave tremendous dash to Saularam due ...
Niyaz Ahmed Ansari Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Additiona ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of one Mavin Keezhil Mohamed Aslam, the detenu, has been preferred by the Petitioner, the friend of the said detenu, for quashing and setting aside the order of detention bearing No.PSA-1214/CR-52/SPL-3(A) dated 16th December, 2014 and for a direction that the detenu may be set at liberty. By the impugned order dated 16th December, 2014, the detenu was ordered to be preventively detained by the Respondent No.2 in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for brevity 'the COFEPOSA Act'). By the impugned order it has been further directed that the detenu shall be detained in the Nashik Road Central Prison. 2. Heard Mrs.Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Yagnik, learned APP appearing for the Respondents. We have also minutely perused the entire record produced by t...
In Re: Casby CFS Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
1. Sanction of this Court is sought under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) in respect of a scheme of amalgamation between Casby CFS Private Limited (Transferor) and Casby Logistics Private Limited (Transferee) and their respective shareholders, whereunder the entire business and the whole of the undertaking of the Transferor shall stand transferred to and vest in the Transferee with effect from the appointed date in terms of the scheme proposed by the Petitioners. 2. The Transferor was incorporated on 7th March 2006, and has been carrying on the business of setting up a container freight station. The Transferee was originally incorporated on 9th December 1998, under the name Cassinath Shipping Private Limited. The Registrar of Companies issued a fresh certificate of incorporation on 17th April 2001, changing the name of the Transferee to its present name. The Transferee has been carrying on the business of logistics and port services across India. 3. According to the Pe...
Sameer Ahmed Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
T.V. Nalawade, J. 1. The petition is filed to challenge the order dated 11-6-2002 made by the Committee constituted for scrutiny and verification of the tribe claims in Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of), Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe by name "Raj". In the present petition, relief of setting aside that order is claimed. Also relief of declaration is claimed that the petitioner belongs to the said scheduled tribe. Both the sides are heard. Original record was made available to this Court. 2. The caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to respondent No,2, Committee, by the college of the petitioner for verific...
Chaya and Others Vs. Additional Collector, Gadchiroli and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in all these petitions is to the no-confidence motion passed by absolute majority against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, which is confirmed in appeal by the Additional Collector in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction under Section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (the said Act). 3. The facts of the cases are as under: A motion of no-confidence moved against the Sarpanch by the elected members of the Gram Panchayat was passed in terms of Section 35 of the said Act by absolute majority in a special meeting chaired by the Tahsildar. The appeals were preferred under Section 35(3-B) of the said Act before the Additional Collector, who accepted that the no-confidence motion was moved and passed by the elected members of the Gram Panchayats, as provided under Section 35 of the said Act by absolute majority. However, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »