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.
Dr. Prakash Kanhayalal Kankaria Vs. State of Maharashtra Copy served o ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition is filed with multiple prayers, however, the main prayer is for quashing First Information Report registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar vide C.R.No. 380/2008, dated 20.12.2008, filed by Sagunabai Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. By way of amendment, the petitioner has added further prayer for quashing charge sheet dated 15.01.2009, numbered as 18/2009, filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, pending as STC No. 29/2009. 2. It appears that, during pendency of this Petition, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d), is in force and as a result further proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 380/2008, have not been proceeded further. It further appears that, this Court issued 'Rule' on 18th November, 2009. The Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner and his wife are the Doctors by profession, and practicing at Ah...
Alka and Others Vs. Joint Director and Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. In all these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order of the Scrutiny Committee functioning under 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 Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001), invalidating the caste/tribe claim of respective petitioner. The petitioners seek protection in employment, in terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of ArunVishwanath Sonone .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457). The said claim for protection is objected by the State Government, as also by their respective employers on the ground that their caste/tribe does not figure in the Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995 or later policy decision dated 30.06.2004, and hence benefit cannot be extended to them. 2. As the issue involved is same, as reque...
The University of Pune Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsels for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The University of Pune, by this petition impugns the order dated 27 December 2013 made by the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (said Act). By the impugned order dated 27 December 2013, upon concluding that certain clauses of Circular No. 239 of 2013 issued by the Vice Chancellor, University of Pune in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 14(8) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (MU Act) are in conflict with the provisions of the RTI Act, has directed the 'deletion / correction' thereof and to report compliance by 15 January 2014. By order dated 3 February 2014, this Court stayed the directions contained in the impugned order and directed that it would be appropriate to hear this petition finally, at the stage of admission. 3. Section 14 of the MU Act defines the powers and du...
M/s Hotel Satkar and Another Vs. Krishnanath Nanu Chavdikar and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Second Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 06.10.2005 on the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh property [1998(7) SCC 184] and in view of the fact that the plaintiffs/appellants in the suit were enforcing the statutory obligation on part of respondent no. 1 to vacate the suit premises in view of the termination of licence n his favour, suit could be said to be barred by Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932? (2) Whether a true and correct interpretation of the agreement dated 1.4.1976, 10.9.1980, 1.4.1982, 1.4.1986, 1.4.1987 and 1.4.1988 the same could be considered as creating a lease in respect of suit hotel in favour of respondent no. 1? 3. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for ...
Globsport India Private Limited Vs. Mayfair Housing Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 28th January, 2012 directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent the sum of Rs.3,33,63,745/- with further interest thereon on the principal sum of Rs. 2,85,42,116/- to be calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from 23rd March, 2011 and also directing the petitioner to pay arbitration cost quantified at Rs.27,53,904/-. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The respondent is the owner of Office No.501, Prima Plaza, Plot No.38/A, S.V.Road, Near Asha Parekh Hospital, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400054. 3. On 14th October, 2008, the parties entered into a leave and licence agreement as well as amenities agreement in respect of the said office. It is the case of the respondent that the amenities agreement was supplementary, co-terminus and in conjunction with the leave and licence agreement. It is no...
Masterbaker Marketing Ltd. and Another Vs. Noshir Mohsin Chinwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. This notice has been taken out under Order 21 Rule 22 (b) of the CPC by the plaintiff / judgment creditor (JC) for execution of a decree of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (the Court)as the reciprocating territory filed under Section 44A of the CPC. The notice having been issued upon the defendant / judgment debtor (JD) three contentions in law have been taken up as to why the decree of the foreign Court cannot be enforced as a foreign judgment under Section 13 of the CPC. 2. The defendant was the Chief Financial Officer of the plaintiff. He retired in 2008. Certain irregularities in his work were noticed. The accounts of the plaintiff were got audited through KPMG who submitted initially a preliminary and then final audit report of the funds having been siphoned off by the defendant over a period of 10 years and deposited in various companies incorporated by the defendant and his wife. 3. Hence the plaintiff sued in the Court upon fraud having been committed by the defe...
Jennifer Mascarenhas and Another Vs. Jose Antonio Domnic Dias and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. Heard Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri V. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Shri P. Karpe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash the Order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Adhoc District Judge, North Goa, at Panaji, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 116 of 2012. 3. The records reveal that the respondent no. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 161 of 2011 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Panaji, against the Petitioner and the respondent no. 2, inter alia, seeks for a permanent and mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs. An application for temporary injunction was filed therein, inter alia, to restrain the petitioners from doing any construction activity in the suit property and/or from changing the nature thereof in any manner. A reply and written statement was filed in the suit by the petitioners and the respondent no.2. The P...
Alka and Others Vs. Joint Director and Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. In all these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order of the Scrutiny Committee functioning under 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 Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001), invalidating the caste/tribe claim of respective petitioner. The petitioners seek protection in employment, in terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of ArunVishwanath Sonone .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457). The said claim for protection is objected by the State Government, as also by their respective employers on the ground that their caste/tribe does not figure in the Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995 or later policy decision dated 30.06.2004, and hence benefit cannot be extended to them. 2. As the issue involved is same, as reque...
Mahesh Parsram Matta Vs. State of Goa Through Public Prosecutor and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. K. Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the First Information Report of Crime No. 522/2014 registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420 and 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) in Margao Town Police Station, Goa. The investigation of the above crime is going on. The respondent no. 2 lodged this First Information Report on behalf of M/s. Sanda Well Being Private Ltd. (M/s. Sanda Company, for short). The said Company is presently known as M/s. Yours Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. 4. The above mentioned First Information Report is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that alre...
Santosh Laximan Fadte Vs. Nitish Suryakant Kavlekar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'E' Court, Mapusa, (J.M.F.C.) in charge of 'D' Court, Mapusa, in Criminal Case No. 475/OA/2009/D dated 03.07.2010 by which the accused/respondent is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ('N. I. Act'). 2. The parties are referred to as per their original status. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal may be stated as follows: The complainant filed a complaint against the accused stating that the accused along with his wife had agreed to sell a plot No. 128 forming part of the property surveyed under no.77/1 of Village Pilerne of Bardez Taluka Goa to the complainant for total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-. 4. The complainant accordingly paid part consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- by two cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- each dated 28.01.2009 drawn on the Bank of India, Bicholim Goa. 5. The complainant states that s...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »