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.
Narendra Jayantilal Desai Vs. Nirmala Maganlal Doshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2015
1. This revision application is filed against the judgment dated 18.04.2006/19.04.2006 passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai whereby the appeal filed by the landlord was allowed with costs. By the said judgment, the judgment of the trial court passed on 12.07.1999 in R.A.E. Suit No.2989/1977 was set aside and in its place, the suit was decreed and the possession of the suit premises, as described in the plaint, was directed to be handed over to the plaintiff-landlord. 2. This matter has had a long journey. The RAE Suit No.2989 of 1997 was filed on 3.12.1996. It came to be dismissed on 12.7.1999. The Appeal bearing No.175 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiffs on 4.11.1999 and came to be allowed on 18.4.2006-19.4.2006. This CRA was filed on 11.8.2006 and was admitted and stay was granted in favour of the applicant on 11.9.2006. This CRA was heard on 4.1.2013, 7.1.2013 and 10.1.2013 but then the hearing remained inconclusive. Thereafter this court heard the appli...
M/s. Ganga Bhaskar Builders and Others Vs. The Competent Authority and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2015
1. Petitioner No.1-the firm-the builder/promoter, in the Application for deemed conveyance filed by the Society (Respondent No.2), before the Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar (Respondent No.1), under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, management, Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short, the MOFA Act), have challenged impugned order dated 5 May 2014 and also the consequential certificate. The Petitioners have also prayed for rehearing of the proceedings to the extent of balance FSI admeasuring 161.57 sq. mtrs. (the property) in the land bearing survey No. 253(Pt), Hissa No. 9/2, 15 to 18, 19/2, 20/2, 22/2, 23, 24, 25, 26/2, 27 to 30, situated at Village Virar, Tal. Vasai, Dist. Thane. 2. Most of the members, about 14 in numbers, entered into an agreement to sale in respect of the property in favour of Petitioner No.1 (the firm) in which Parag Jagnnath Choudhary is a partner. The other Petitioners executed a Po...
Mithalal B. Gurjar Vs. Union of India acting through Deputy Chief Engi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2015
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 26th February 2007 by which the learned arbitrator has rejected 10 claims out of 11 claims made by the petitioner and allowed 2 counter claims out of 4 counter 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 original claimant whereas the respondent no.1 was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. 3. On 3rd October 2002, the petitioner was awarded the contract of Earth work for Electrical Sub-station building, construction of sub station building, Earth work in Karjat yard between Ch.27120M to 28000M and construction of approach road at Karjat vide letter of acceptance dated 3rd October 2002. The total cost of the work was Rs.62,15,000/-. The original stipulated date of completion was 3rd July 2...
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck Vs. Gharda Chemicals Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2015
NareshPatil, J. 1. Admit. By consent heard finally. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Suit No.2932/2011. The suit is filed for derivative action by the appellant-plaintiff as minority shareholder. The defendant No.2-Mr. Keki Hormusji Gharda is the Chairman and Managing Director of defendant No.1-Company i.e. Gharda Chemicals Limited. Defendant No.3 is the wife of defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the directors of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 happens to be the uncle (mother's brother) of the plaintiff. The relations between uncle and nephew are strained as borne out from the pleadings and the arguments advanced during the course of hearing. 3. The plaintiff's grievance, in brief, is that defendant No.2 had obtained several patents in his own name whereas the patents ought to have been applied and obtained in the name of defendant No.1-Company. The plaintiff is raising claim as minority shareholder on behalf of defendant No.1-Company. As the company is in the con...
Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another Vs. Laxman Shyamrao Parate ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, the learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Kirti Satpute, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and Shri D.B. Patel, the learned A.G.P. for the respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The petition is filed by the Management/employer taking exception to the order passed by the School Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the respondent no.1/employee is allowed and the termination order issued by the Management is set aside and it is held that the respondent no.1 is deemed to have been reinstated in service from the date of his termination till he attained the age of superannuation. The Tribunal has directed that the respondent no.1/employee be treated to be in service and the petitioners are directed to pay 50% of the arrears of salary to the respondent no.1 for the period from 19th January, 2000 till 30th September, 2004. 4. It is undisputed that the appointment of the petitioner was after following the due...
Union of India, through General Manager, Western Railway Administratio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent the matter is heard finally. 2. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 21st June, 2013, allowing part of the claims made by the respondents and rejecting the counter claim made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 3. The petitioner herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings, whereas respondent No.1 was the original claimant. 4. Some time in October, 2003, the petitioner floated a tender for leasing of space in Train No.19019 from Bandra Terminus to Dehradun. Pursuant to the said tender, respondent No.1 submitted their bid for Bandra Terminus to Delhi Terminus and quoted Rs.8700/- per trip 4 tonne. 5. By a letter dated 25th March, 2004, the petitioner informed respondent No.1 that the competent authority had accepted ...
EDC Limited Vs. M/s. GKB Opthalmics Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal at the instance of the original plaintiff, EDC Limited (formerly known as Economic Development Corporation of Goa, Daman and Diu Limited) challenging the judgment and decree dated 28/03/2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji in Special Civil Suit No. 55/2001/B. By the impugned judgment, the suit for recovery of money filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, may be stated thus: That the appellant is a Financial Institution owned by the Government of Goa and Industrial Development Bank of India. The first respondent M/s. GKB Ophthalmics Ltd. is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Old Act). The second and the third respondents are the promoters/directors and shareholders of the first respondent. Sometime in the month of April, 1996, the first respondent had approached the appellant, with a request for equity participation ...
Bajirao and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2015
1. Both the proceedings are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of quashing and setting aside First Information Reports given against the applicants on the basis of which crime is registered mainly for offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) (first proceeding) and section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 issued in respect of the provisions of the Act. The same learned Counsel argued in both the proceedings of the applicants and as the same point was argued for getting the relief, both the matters are being decided together. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is heard. 2. In the first proceeding the crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Laxman Bansode. The incident in question took place on 25-6-2011. He has made allegations ...
Dr. Ulhas S. Parab Vs. The Visitor of Goa University, (Appellate Autho ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2015
R.M. Borde, J. 1. The petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.01.2004 issued by the Chancellor and appellate authority of the Goa University, confirming the order passed by the Goa University by adopting Resolution dated 21.03.2003 thereby awarding penalty of compulsory retirement from service to the petitioner with effect from 29.03.2003. 2. The petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Registrar in Examination Division at Goa University since 31.08.1990. He took over as Controller of Examinations of Goa University on 16.07.1991. There was an incidence concerning alleged mal practice at the examination of M.A. Sociology held in April 1995 in case of one student by name Rajesh Dessai. It is alleged that three answer books concerning papers SC-4, (Philosophical Science Method) SC-6, (Social Stratification) and SC-7 (System and Theory of Kinship) of the Masters of Ar...
Ashok Metal Corporation Vs. The Senior Inspector of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2015
1. The proceeding is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of the Constitution of India for claiming various reliefs. Relief of direction is claimed to hand over 8 gold bars weighing 8 kilograms seized by police in CR No.2/2015 registered for offence punishable under section 124 of the Maharashtra Police Act by Lohmarg Police Station Bhusawal. Indirectly relief is also claimed for quashing of the First Information Report of this crime. Compensation of Rs.15 lakh is claimed for so called illegal arrest of one Devang Shah in this crime. Relief is claimed for giving direction to the Customs Department not to make any further inquiry in respect of seizure of this gold. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Customs Department and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor are heard. 2. The facts show that on 9-1-2015 at about 9.40 p.m. the police of aforesaid police station received information that one person occupying berth No.39 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »