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.
M/s. S. Satyanarayana and Co. Vs. M/s. West Quay Multiport Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2015
P.C. : 1. The arbitration petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeks an interim injunction against enforcement of bank guarantees. The disputes between the parties arise out of two contracts, one for supply of materials and the other for supply of labour for construction of compound wall at stack yard of a birth in the Port of Visakhapatnam. The two bank guarantees, which are sought to be invoked by Respondent No.1, and invocation of which is sought to be restrained herein, are performance bank guarantees furnished under these contracts. 2. The contracts required each of the bank guarantees to be for an amount of 10% of the contract value and valid for a period of 12 months, guaranteeing due performance of the contract. The contracts, which are in identical terms in material respects, inter alia provided for (i) completion period and certificate to be issued on completion of work, (ii) defects liability period of 18 months from such certified c...
Union of India, represented by Chief Commercial Manager Vs. K.P. Trade ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
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 arbtiral award dated 8th October, 2010 rendered by the learned arbitrator allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings whereas the respondent was the original claimant. 3. On 19th August, 1998 the petitioner had invited the tenders for Handling and Transhipment of Goods and Luggage at Sabarmati TP vide Tender Notice No.357. The petitioner awarded the said work to the respondent for the period from 11th August, 1998 to 10th August, 2001 which was further extended upto 15th January, 2002. The petitioner issued a letter of award of contract on 19th August, 1998. The parties executed an agreement on 20th April, 1999. 4. The dispute arose between the parties. By le...
Mahadevi Vs. Gopal
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
Per Court: 1. This application is filed under Section 24 of the CPC by the applicant/ wife seeking transfer of H.M.P. No. 163 of 2014 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai. The respondent is the husband of the applicant. 2. The parties had got married on 11-03-2012 at Saygaon, Tq. Ambajogai. It is alleged that on account of some ill-treatment and in view of the failure on the part of the applicant to fulfill alleged demands by the respondent/ husband, she was driven out of her matrimonial home by the husband and his close relatives. Since then, applicant resides at Sayagaon, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 3. The applicant has filed two proceedings against the respondent/ husband which are pending before the competent Courts at Ambajogai. Misc. Criminal Application No. 62 of 2014 is preferred by the applicant under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Firs...
M/s. Shivshakti Bioplantic Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
1. The proceeding is filed for quashing of the FIR No.5/2015 registered in Hadgaon Police Station for offences punishable under section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by the Agriculture Officer in respect of fertilizers found on the road when sale of the fertilizer was going on. The incident took place on 31-1-2015. Both the sides are heard. 2. The incident took place on Hadgaon Tamsa Road. One truck bearing No. MH 26 AD 669 was stationary on the road and the sale of bags containing fertilizer was going on. Farmers had gathered and coolies were there for carrying the bags. When the officers including the complainant reached there and started making enquiry, persons who had gathered including the coolies went away. 3. On the inquiry made by the Agriculture Officer persons who were with the truck showed bilti of Navbharat Fertilizer. No other record was found with regard to the ...
Union of India, Through the Commandant, Embarkation Headquarters Vs. J ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioners have impugned the arbtiral award dated 4th October, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondents and rejecting the counter claims made by the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioners were the original respondents whereas the respondents were the original claimants in the arbitral proceedings. On 2nd December, 2008, the petitioners issued notice inviting tenders for hiring of transport from Mumbai for the period from April 2009 to 31st March, 2010. In response to the said notice, the respondents submitted their tender on 5th December, 2008. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents had not quoted the rate of Rs.200/- per Km subject to minimum distance of 300 Km. On 5th December, 2008 the respondents signed ...
Shashikant Chandrakant Chaudhary Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th March 2013 delivered in Sessions case No.77 of 2012, convicting the appellant, who was the sole accused in the said case, of an offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC, and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10(ten) years, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/in default to suffer RI for 6(six) months. 2. I have heard Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate for the applicant. Heard Mrs.Anamika Malhotra, learned APP for the State. 3. The appellant had sought for the suspension of the sentence imposed upon him during the pendency of the Appeal, but in the course of hearing of the application for suspension of sentence, the learned counsel had submitted that he would not press the said application if the Appeal could be taken up for hearing, expeditiously. It was, therefore, decided to keep the application for suspension of sentence in abeyance, and make an endeavour to hear the Appeal itself, finally at an earl...
Nitin Yeshwant Patekar Vs. Maria Luiza Quadros
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
1. By this revision application, the original complainant is challenging the judgment and order dated 05.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No. 101/2012. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 22.10.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pernem in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 112/2012, by which the learned Magistrate had directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short). 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the revision application, may be stated thus: That the first respondent is the owner of land bearing survey no. 280/1-A-1 of village Dhargal, admeasuring 5000 square metres. It appears that the first respondent had obtained a permission under Section 17-A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act of 1974, for short), for filling of the low lying land. That permission was granted ...
Krishna Kautik Valvi and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, heard finally. 2. The brief facts leading for filing the present Petition, disclosed in the memo of Petition, are as under: (a) By the instant petition the petitioners are seeking directions against the respondent no. 1 to 4 herein to grant the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme to the petitioners by considering the petitioners' earlier services. (b) In the year 1995, by following due process of law, the petitioners have been appointed as lecturers in their respective subjects. The petitioners have been appointed by duly selection committee and the said appointments have been approved by the respondent no.4 University. At the time of appointment of the petitioners, the NET/SET qualification was not essential and the same was made compulsory w.e.f. 04.04.2000. That apart, at the relevant time, the candidates of having NET/SET qualification were not availabl...
Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd. and Another Vs. M.V. Daebo Lumut and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
P.C. : 1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit to recover a maritime claim against the 1st Defendant vessel, which is a foreign flag flying vessel, claimed to be of the beneficial ownership of the 2nd Defendant. The claim arises under a time charter party, by which the Plaintiff had given its vessel, M. V. Cygnus Ocean, to the 2nd Defendant on a time charter. The claim is in respect of breach of the charter party including non-payment of hire charges and aggregates to over USD 2 Million. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the 2nd Defendant has filed for bankruptcy in Korea. On these facts, the 1st Defendant vessel, which was within the port and harbour of Visakhapatnam, was arrested by the Plaintiff in the present suit, under an order of arrest dated 17 March 2015. There is no application as yet from the owners of the vessel to vacate the arrest by payment of any security or otherwise. The 1st Defendant vessel is, accordingly, awaiting an order of sale. 2. The Applicant herein c...
Gour Chandra Dutta Vs. Union of India through the General Manager and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. The petitioner, a central railway employee, following a disciplinary inquiry, was penalized with compulsorily retirement with 67% pensionary benefits. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, against which the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which also dismissed the application. The petitioner therefore, has approached this court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari, writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction with other reliefs against the respondents. 2. On or about 27.12.1978 the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior clerk in the Central Railway, Mumbai. The petitioner was later, in the normal course, promoted to the post of Senior clerk, then Head clerk and subsequently as Office Superintendent GR-II. 3. On or about 26.6.2006, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.4, under whom the petitioner was posted, allegedly misbehaved with the petitioner because of which the petitioner lo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »