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.
Francisca Luiza Rocha and Others Vs. Palanivel Gaunder and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. These two appeals are arising out of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, dated 21.05.2012 passed in Claim Petition Nos. 88/2008 and 89/2008 respectively. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The brief facts leading to the above two appeals may be summarized as follows: 4. The claimants i.e widow and two sons of the deceased Julius D'Rocha filed Claim Petition No. 88/2008 for the compensation on account of death of Julius D'Rocha in a motor vehicular accident took place between the vehicle Nos. TN-27/Q- 2179 (herein after referred to as the truck ) and GA-02-T-4671 (herein after referred to as the bus ). The claimants have claimed the total compensation of Rs.64,90,996/- on account of all permissible heads i.e. pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The widow namely Mrs. Francisca Rocha has filed another Claim Petition bearing no. 89/2008 for the compensation on account of injuries sustained to her and disablement caused due ...
Bonanza Commodities Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Roshanara Bhinder
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
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 25th February, 2014 rendered by the arbitral tribunal rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent. The petitioner is a member of Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. (for short the said MCX) and carries on business as commodity brokers. The respondent was registered with the petitioner as the constituent and was executing transactions for sale and purchase of various commodities by using internet trading facility provided by the petitioner. 3. On 14th August, 2012, the petitioner and the respondent executed 'Know Your Client' form and Member Client Agreement thereby the respondent appointing the...
Vyankatesh Shikshan Sanstha Latur Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he invited our attention to the resolution passed by the petitioner Management, wherein one Shri. Mukta Shivmurti Manmathappa, was appointed as Headmaster. He further submits that, his proposal was sent to the Education Officer for approval by forwarding letter dated 8th November, 2013, addressed to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad Latur. It is further submitted that, Respondent No.4 voluntarily agreed before the Education Officer to give up his claim for the post of Headmaster by promotion, though he was senior most teacher. The learned counsel invited our attention to the letter written by Shri. Nagade addressed to Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur dated 8th November, 2013, and submitted that, the contents of the said letter were written by said Shri. Nagade in presence of Edu...
Premnath Rama Shetty and Others Vs. Vasanti Rama Shetty and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on earlier dates on this appeal preferred by the present appellants / original defendants, challenging the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No. 1270 of 2014. 2. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that initially the present appellants filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the said order dated 30th January, 2015. However, during the initial arguments when a challenge was raised on behalf of the present respondent, original plaintiff, the present appellants prayed for conversion of the said writ petition into an appeal. Said request was allowed by us. Pursuant to the same, a separate appeal memo is prepared and filed and which is being disposed of by the present order. 3. Again, at the threshold, it must be mentioned that as the issue involved between the parties who are the son and mother i.e. appellant no.1 and present respondent, being the dispute ...
Vishant Satyavijay Naik Vs. Shreyans Kumar Jain and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. Heard. Admit. Shri Teles, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 waives notice. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this revision application, the petitioner/original accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2011, by which the judgment and order dated 30.03.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Margao in Criminal Case No. 244/NIA/2009/III, thereby convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing him to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months, has been confirmed. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision application may be stated thus: That Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited (Shriram Finance, for short), is a financial company in the business of granting vehicle finance. A proprietary concern namel...
Nitin Digamber Kothawade Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.173 of 1995 by the Judgment dated 27th February, 1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two months; imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year and R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two months, respectively, by this Appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, as are necessary, for deciding this Appeal can briefly be stated thus:- The marriage of deceased Surekha, the daughter of PW-12 Ramdas, was performed with the Appellant on 26th May, 1995. It was an arranged marriage. After the marriage, she stayed in the house of her parents for about 15 days in the month of June, 1995. During her stay, s...
T.N. Goreti Furtado e Fernandes @ Goretti Fernandes Vs. Mahantesh Veer ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- III, South Goa, Margao, by which the claim petition of the claimant was partly allowed and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay an additional compensation of Rs.29,733/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the final payment. 2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: 3. The parties are referred to their original status. 4. The claimant moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the compensation on account of injuries and permanent disability caused to her in the motor vehicular accident. On 31.01.2008 the claimant was riding a Honda Activa scooter bearing registration No. GA-06-B-0518 from Sushenashram Vidyalaya, Jetty and was proceeding towards Deepvihar High School, Sada. When she reached at the spot of the accident at about 11.45...
Ajay Singh (Sunny) Deol and Another Vs. Suneel Darshan and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. By these two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), both the petitioners have challenged part of the impugned award dated 6th June 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the claim made by Mr. Suneel Darshan-petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.908 of 2011 however, awarding arbitration costs of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rs. Twelve Lacs only) against Mr. Ajay Singh (Sunny) Deol-the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.819 of 2011 who was the original respondent. The respondent in the said petition was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings. Mr. Suneel Darshan is described as the claimant and Mr. Ajay Singh (Sunny) Deol is described as the respondent in this judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these two petitions are as under : 2. Mr. Ajay Singh (Sunny) Deol-the respondent is an actor by profession. The claimant is a film producer. The dispute arose between the parties...
SICOM Limited and Others Vs. Naresh Chandra Malhotra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. The plaintiff / decree holder has sought to execute the decree passed by this Court in the above suit against the defendants / judgment debtors. The defendants have applied for dismissal of the execution application on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree passed by it. 2. An admitted chronology of dates and events must be first seen. The suit was filed in 2000. The plaintiff was not a financial institution then. A decree came to be passed on 3rd December 2002. The plaintiff was not a financial institution even then. The plaintiff was notified as financial institution in 2004. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 (DRT Act) was enacted in 1993 and amended in 2000. It would apply to the plaintiff from 2004. The plaintiff has taken out the execution application in 2012. 3. It is contended by the plaintiff that under Section 38 of the CPC this Court is the executing Court since it is the Court which passed the decree. It i...
Authorised Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Brahmo Construct ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 27/11/2014 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Pune by which order the learned Judge has decided the preliminary issue and has ruled that his Court is having the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in question. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of the above Civil Revision Application, in brief, can be stated thus: The Respondent herein is the original Plaintiff who has filed the suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.1756 of 2014 seeking a permanent injunction for restraining the Applicant herein i.e. the Defendant-Bank from re-auctioning the property. The property in contention is CTS No.1194/27A admeasuring 552 sq.mtrs. situated at Shivajinagar, Pune which was mortgaged to the Defendant Bank as a security against the loan amount of one M/s. Pratam Motors. The Defendant Bank was please...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »