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.
V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Priyamvada and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
1. Almost 20 years ago, on or about 5th June 1994, there was a collision at the port of Marmagoa, Goa between m.v.Sanjeevani owned by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant vessel owned by the 2nd defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the collision was entirely due to the negligence and total and wanton dis-regard to good seamanship, collision regulations and other principles of safety and navigation by those manning the 1st defendant-vessel. The plaintiffs are claiming a sum of Rs.13,33,70,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount. 2. The defendants filed written statement and counter claim on 30.4.1996, almost 19 years ago, in which it is alleged that the incident of collision was caused by acts or omissions of the plaintiffs-vessel m.v. Sanjeevani and her complement. In the alternative it is claimed that the incident was occasioned by act of God and/or perils of the sea. The defendants are counter claiming for a decree in the sum of Rs.10,95,330/- with inte...
Rajan Sagun Wadkar and Others Vs. Roshani Rajan Wadkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Both these cases are between the same parties. They involve common and connected questions. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Mrs. Roshani Wadkar, the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 14/2015 has filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short), which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bicholim. The petitioner, Mrs. Roshani Wadkar has claimed maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and for her two minor children, who are Petitioners No. 2 and 3. The maintenance is claimed against the respondent, Mr. Rajan Wadkar. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that she was married with the respondent on 27.10.1994 and thereafter the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu Religious Rites and Customs on 16.04.1995. After her marriage, she went to reside with th...
Mridangraj Hiralal Suchak @ Barfiwalla and Another Vs. Bank of Baroda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
1. Both, the plaintiff and defendant before the trial court have filed independent Civil Revision Applications. The plaintiff decree-holder has filed Civil Revision Application No.790 of 2012 and the defendant has filed Civil Revision Application No.406 of 2012. Both the Civil Revision Applications can be disposed by this common judgment. For convenience, the description of the parties in the trial court is maintained. 2. Facts, in brief, that led to the filing of the said two revision applications are as under: 3. The suit property being commercial property consisted of three shops on the ground floor of a building by name Coronation at Block No.C-57-59, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Mumbai-400 004. It is situated at C.P.Tank junction which is one of the busiest locality in that part of Mumbai, a junction of 5 roads and had access to it from the main road itself. The said 3 shops were joint together and the total area of the premises was 2255 sq. ft. (the suit premises). 4. The plaintiff was...
Kamleshkumar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
1. The proceeding is filed under sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of setting aside and quashing of the order dated 28-11-2007 made in RCC No.1058 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded by which the learned Judicial Magistrate has directed police to make investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relief of quashing of the FIR of CR No.122 of 2008 which came to be registered on the basis of the order made by the Judicial Magistrate is also claimed. Both the sides are heard. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also heard. 2. Respondent No.2 of the present proceeding has contended that he deals in pesticides and seeds and he is doing business in Nanded. Accused No.2 Anil Kulkarni is the manager of accused No.1 and they are doing business of supply of hybrid seeds. Accused No.1 is the Director of Global Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd, the office of which is situated in Gujarat. The complainant had agreed ...
M/s. Maks Glass Corporation Vs. The Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Ban ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 24th April 2010 passed by the learned arbitrator under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 thereby allowing the claims made by the respondent no.1. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner herein was the respondent no.1 in the arbitral proceedings whereas the respondent no.1 herein was the original claimant. The respondent nos.2 to 4 in the present proceedings were the original respondent nos.2 to 4 in the arbitral proceedings. 3. The petitioner in his capacity as a member made an application to the respondent no.1-Bank for Term Loan facility of Rs.4.80 lacs on 2nd March 1993. The respondent no.1 sanctioned the said application on various terms and conditions. The said loan was repayable with interest @17.5% p.a. The petiti...
Mayur Mozes Khajekar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra andu Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. The learned APP is also heard. 2. The proceeding is filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of FIR in CR No. 141/2014 registered in Chavni Police Station of Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The Crime is registered on the basis of report given by Smt. Smita Khajekar against the petitioners. She was given in marriage to petitioner No. 1 - Mayur on 07/11/2010 and the marriage took place as per the rites and customs of Christan religion. During the pendency of the proceeding, submissions were made for petitioner No. 1 - Mayur, husband, that he wants to withdraw the petition and to that extent, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn. 4. It is the case of complainant/wife that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs. three lakh was given by her father to her husband. It is her case that she was treated w...
Balasaheb and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No.89/1999 which was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years and three years respectively is given and both the sentences are made to run concurrently. Both the sides are heard. 2. Deceased Mangal was daughter of original complainant Babu Narwade. She was given in marriage to appellant No.1 about four years prior to her death. The deceased has left behind one daughter aged about 7 months. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of appellant No.1. It is the case of the State that all the appellants were living in the same house where the deceased cohabited with appellant No.1. 3. It is the case of the State that ill-treatment was given to the deceased by husband and the parents of the husband...
Mayur Mozes Khajekar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra andu Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. The learned APP is also heard. 2. The proceeding is filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of FIR in CR No. 141/2014 registered in Chavni Police Station of Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The Crime is registered on the basis of report given by Smt. Smita Khajekar against the petitioners. She was given in marriage to petitioner No. 1 - Mayur on 07/11/2010 and the marriage took place as per the rites and customs of Christan religion. During the pendency of the proceeding, submissions were made for petitioner No. 1 - Mayur, husband, that he wants to withdraw the petition and to that extent, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn. 4. It is the case of complainant/wife that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs. three lakh was given by her father to her husband. It is her case that she was treated w...
Dnyaneshwar Maroti Bembde and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case (Attro.) No.11/2011(New) [Special Case (Attro.) No. 4/2010 (Old)] which was pending in Court of Special Judge, Ahmedpur, District Latur. The appellants are convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocites) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Special Act' for short) and also for offence punishable under sections 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months is given and fine is also imposed. Both the sides are heard. 2. The complainant was working as Circle Agricultural Officer at Kingaon, Tahsil Ahmedpur, District Latur at the relevant time. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were working as Agricultural Assistants and accused No.3 had retired from the same office. It is the cases of complainant accused No. 1 to 3/appellants were constantly harassing him with t...
Shaikh and Others Vs. Sakharam and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
1. These Appeals From Order have been filed by original Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 being aggrieved by the Common Judgment dated 7th October 2006 passed by District Judge, Udgir allowing the Appeals and remanding matters, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2006 and Regular Civil Appeal No.71 of 2006, which Appeals were filed by Respondent No.1 Sakharam Vasaram Pawar (in Appeal From Order No.86 of 2007) and Zimmabai w/o Sakharam Pawar (in Appeal From Order No.96 of 2007) respectively as their Suits being Regular Civil Suit No.133 of 2005 (filed by Sakharam) and Regular Civil Suit No.135 of 2005 (filed by his wife Zimmabai) had been dismissed as hit by provisions of Res-Judicata. By the Common Judgment dated 7th October 2006, District Judge, Udgir has allowed the Appeals of the original Plaintiffs and remanded back the matters to the Civil Judge, Junior Division for decision according to law and has also directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Trial Court had found the Regular Civil Suit N...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »