Mumbai Court April 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.
Babu Vs. Sheshrao
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2015
Per Court: 1. I have heard Shri Jadhav, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri. Jain, learned Advocate for the sole respondent for quite some time. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 07-02-2013 delivered in R.C.S.No. 206 of 2006 as well as by the judgment of the Appeal Court dated 29-12-2014 delivered in R.C.A. No. 45 of 2013. 3. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff and the appellant is the original defendant. Suit for removal of encroachment of land admeasuring 30 R was instituted by the plaintiff. The defendant was alleged to have indulged in an act of encroachment to the extent of the said land. 4. It was the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of land admeasuring 1 H. 05 R in survey No. 63/C. He had got the suit property in a partition in 1984-85. He had applied for measurement on 13-02-2012 on account of the alleged encroachment by the defendant. Measurement was carried out on 28-12-2012 and it was revea...
Deborah Mary Crasto Leclerc Vs. Patrick Oliver Leclerc
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2015
1. Admit. 2. Mr. Rao, the learned Counsel waives service. 3. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. By this Revision Application, the petitioner/ original applicant wife, is challenging the judgment and order dated 05/02/2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby confirming the order dated 07/10/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa in Criminal Case No. OA/58/DVA/2012/A. 5. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, may be stated thus: That the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. They are blessed with three children, namely a daughter and two sons. The daughter is said to be under vegetative state on account of an accidental injury. The present dispute pertains to an order, by which, the learned Magistrate has allowed the applications filed by the respondent /husband, thereby issuing summons, asking the two sons, namely Scott Leclerc and Bre...
Digamber Madye and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2015
P.C.: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. The Petition arises out of the order passed by Respondent No.1 dated 13th December, 2011 thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the Reference No. CGIT-2/40 of 2005 made earlier. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as under:- (a) According to the petitioners, the petitioners were employed for manning STD/ISD telephone facilities provided for the passengers by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport (CSI). It is the case of the petitioners that they were in fact employed by the Respondent No.2 Airports Authority of India, though they were shown as contract labour through the Respondent No.4 contractor M/s. Friends Communication Services. (b) The petitioners had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 876 of 1998 praying that Airports Authority of India be directed to absorb and ...
Sitabai Ramchandra Lonkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2015
A.S. Oka, J. 1. This Petition was listed for final hearing after the notice for final disposal has been issued in this Writ Petition. The Petition relates to the land bearing Survey No.26/5 (Old) corresponding to Survey No.29/5 (New) admeasuring 26800 sq. meters together with House No.17 admeasuring 353.03 sq. meters constructed thereon situated at Village Katraj, Taluka-Haveli, District Pune. 2. The Petitioner filed a statement under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ( for short ULC Act). By an order dated 13th August 2002 of the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority No.III, Pune Urban Agglomeration, Pune, passed in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the ULC Act, it was declared that the Petitioner was holding vacant land admeasuring 14,715 sq. meters in excess of the ceiling limit. The said order was amended by a further order dated 17th December 2004 and it was held that the Petitioner was holding the land...
Nanda N. Haldankar Vs. Nalini K. Kulkarni and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2015
1. A dispute as to seniority between two teachers (one of whom is since dead) has dragged on for more than 28 years giving rise to the present appeal. 2. The respondent no. 1-Smt. Nalini Kulkarni (since deceased) had filed a Civil Suit No. 148/2004; [Regular Civil Suit No. 200/88/A(old)], in which the present appellant-Smt. Nanda Haldankar was the defendant no. 6. The present respondents nos. 2 to 6 were the original defendant nos. 1 to 5. 3. As per the plaint allegations, Samaj Seva Sangh, (hereinafter referred to as, Trust), registered under the Societies Registration Act was running a High School known as M and N English High School (hereinafter referred to as, High School) and was also running a Diploma Course of teaching under the name and style, as Samaj Seva Sangh Training College (hereinafter referred to as, Training College). Undisputedly, the High School and Training College were at the relevant time governed by Goa, Daman and Diu (Grant in Aid) Code (the Code, for short). 4....
Kolmar Group AG Vs. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
1. The applicant / decree holder / judgment creditor (plaintiff) has obtained a judgment in the above suit from the Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK against the respondent / judgment debtor (defendant) herein on 1st February, 2010, which the plaintiff desires to execute. Consequently the above execution application is filed for execution of the above judgment. In the above execution the plaintiff has taken out the above Chamber Summons for depositing of decretal amount and failing which for disclosing the particulars of the assets and properties of the defendant, for issue of notices, precepts and warrant as may be required under Order 21 of the CPC, for an injunction against defendant from transferring, alienating and creating any third party rights of any of its properties, appointment of receiver, for detaining the defendant in civil prison upon non compliance of order of disclosure and other incidental reliefs and costs of the application. 2. The certified copy of the above judg...
Dimple Jatin Khanna @ Dimple Rajesh Khanna @ Dimple Khanna and Others ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for Petitioners and Smt. Mrunalini Deshmukh for Respondent No.1 and learned APP Shri V.B.K. Deshmukh for Respondent No.2State. 2. The Petitioners in all the petitions have moved this Court for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, bearing C.C. No. 25/DV/2012 filed by Respondent No.1 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 3. Petitioner No.1 Mrs. Dimple Jatin Khanna @ Dimple Rajesh Khanna and Petitioner No.2 Mrs. Twinkle Rajiv Bhatia in writ petition No.4196 of 2012 are widow and daughter respectively of the deceased Rajesh Khanna (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2' ). The Petitioner in writ petition No.4197 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner No.3' ) is the husband of Petitioner No.2 in writ petition No.4196 of 2012. In this regard it may be mentioned here tha...
Abduppa Vengadan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the cousins of the detenu - Mohammed Ali Vengadan, seeking issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for quashing of the order of detention dated 27th February, 1989 passed by the Respondent No.2 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act') with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods. By the said order dated 27th February, 1989 it was directed to detain the detenu in the custody of the Central Prison at Mumbai. 2. In pursuance of the said order dated 27th February, 1989 passed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, the police authorities of the Respondent No.4, State of Kerala, executed the said order on 25th February, 2015 through Perinthalmanna Police Station, District Malappuram, State of Kerala and the detenu is subsequently sen...
Deelip Vs. Yakub Khan
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
1. The appellant (original plaintiff hereafter referred as plaintiff) had filed Regular Civil Suit No.1900/2012 (Old Special Civil Suit No.535/2008) for mandatory injunction and recovery of damages in lieu of licence fee with interest from respondent (original defendant hereafter referred to as defendant). The suit was decreed on 30.3.2013. The defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.138/2013, which came to be allowed on 30.9.2014 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court with directions to frame proper issues and decide the suit by giving sufficient opportunity to the parties. It is against this order dated 30.9.2014 of the appellate Court that the present Appeal from Order has been filed. 2. Facts material for dealing with the present matter can be stated as under: Plaintiff filed the suit claiming that on 16.2.2006 defendant has executed registered agreement of leave and licence with reference to the...
Gitabai Vs. Anusayabai and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
1. This matter was heard on 08.04.2015. After hearing the learned Advocates for quite sometime, this matter was adjourned to 09.04.2015 at the request of the parties. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides. 2. The issue is as regards the claim for death compensation under the earthquake and resettlement scheme floated by the State Government vide Circular No.MNN-1193/05550/93 dated 14.12.1993. 3. Smt.Anusayabai Hanumant Bairagi is the Plaintiff in RCS No.387/1997. She is the mother of deceased Shardabai. Shardabai was married to Mahavirdas Narsingdas Bairagi, resident of village Killari. Shardabai and Mahavirdas had three daughters and one son. 4. In the earthquake that occurred on 30.09.1993, Mahavirdas, Shardabai and their four children have died. Gitabai Narsingdas, who is mother of Mahavirdas, mother-in-law of Shardabai and grandmother of the four children, claimed the entire compensation as the legal heir of the son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren. Gitabai is the...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »