Mumbai Court June 2015 Judgments
Piraji Narayanrao Mathankar and Another Vs. Laxman Upasrao Pote and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1. Rule. Heard finally. 2. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Appellate Court allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal filed by the present respondents and setting aside the order passed by the trial court dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.279/2007 under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). 3. The relevant facts are that one Kasabai Pote, the predecessor of the present respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No.851/1998 for partition of agricultural land bearing survey nos.56 and 57. It was the case of the said Kasabai that the land in question belonged to her father and that same was ancestral property. After the death of her father, the predecessor of the present petitioner her brother was looking after the said property. Hence, suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed. Her brother “ Narayan was arrayed as defendant. On 30.07.2002 Regular Civil Suit No.851/1998 came to ...
Tag this Judgment!Varun Beverages Ltd., Earlier Varun Beverages (International) Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellant/ complainant is challenging the judgment and order dated 27/03/2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No.26/OA/NI/10/D. By the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the first respondent from an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, 1881 (the Act, for short) 2. The appellant/ complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the Magistrate. The complainant is marketing soft drink /packaged drinking water. The first respondent was a retailer, selling the said soft drinks and packaged drinking water. The appellant used to supply the soft drinks to the first respondent in respect of which, bills used to be raised. It was contended that as on 31/03/2009, the first respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,92,212/- (comprising of 2,32,272/- towards the price of soft drink and Rs.59,940/- being the cost of empties i.e. bottles and crates lying in possession of the fir...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. S.S. Dave and Company Vs. Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur through its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Mr.Akshay Sudame, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dt.4.8.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chandrapur whereby plaint was returned. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, in the impugned order, the learned trial Judge made reference to a clause in the contract between the parties, which is mentioned as below : Condition no.24. Dispute Redressal System 24.1 : If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise in connection with or arising out of this contract or the execution of works or maintenance of the works thereunder, whether before its commencement or during the progress of works or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the contract, it shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to the competent Authority, described along with their power, in the Contract Data, above the rank of the Engineer. The competent author...
Tag this Judgment!Nitin Vs. Ramesh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the said Act) takes exception to the judgment dated 3-5-2013 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Gondia. By said judgment, the claim for compensation moved by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 10 of the said Act has been partly allowed and the present appellant has been held liable to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The relevant facts are that: The son of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 “ Lalchand used to do various works under the directions of the respondent No.3 herein “ Santosh. According to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, on 19-6-2011, the respondent No.3 had come to their residence to engage services of Lalchand. The respondent No.3 told Lalchand that work of laying tin sheets in the Godown owned by the present appellant was to be done. Accordingly, while undertaking the work of laying tin sheets on 19-6-2011, Lalchand came i...
Tag this Judgment!Rose Publicity Through its Proprietor Shri.Lawrence Cruz D'Souza Vs. ' ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1. Heard. Admit. Mr. S. D. Patil, the learned counsel waives service for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this revision application the petitioner “ original complainant is taking exception to the judgment dated 29th October, 2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No.49/2013. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the criminal revision application filed by the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 thereby setting aside the order dated 19th March, 2012, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Panaji, had issued process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as to 'the N. I. Act') against the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is in the advertising business. The petitioner had entered into a campaign agreement of an advertisement upon the hoardings situate...
Tag this Judgment!Loni Vyankanath Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioners seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 17.12.2013, delivered by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 20, 19 and 18 of 2011, respectively in these petitions. Similarly, the petitioners seek to challenge the judgment dated 21.1.2015, delivered by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No. 10, 11 and 12 of 2014, respectively. 5. The common factors, emerging from these three petitions, in the submissions of Shri Latange, learned Advocate are as follows:- (a) All the respondents herein were issued with identical notices, dated 20.3.2011, levelling serious charges of mis-conducts of the nature of riotous and dis-orderly behaviour. (b) Vide Resolution No.3, dated 20.3.2011, all the respondents have been terminated for having committing mis-conduct, by the same orders. (c) The respondents filed the above referred three Complaints und...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Leading Hotels Vs. Anthony Mendes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri V. Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Upadhya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3, Smt. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, Shri D. Lawande, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent No.5 and Shri P. Dangui, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.6 to 10. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice. 3. We have heard extensively Shri V. Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Shri S. Updhya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3. The main grievance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner had raised a specific ground that the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 to 4 is...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Shivanand Bishirotti
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1. By this appeal, the State is challenging the acquittal of the respondent, from an offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus: That the incident in question had occurred on 28.11.2004 at about 6:15 a.m. at Sastiwado, Bicholim, in front of the house of one Karapurkar. It is stated that now deceased, Dwarkanath Sirsat was going for a morning walk, when a truck bearing registration no. KA-22-C-8292 came from behind and gave a dash to Dwarkanath Sirsat, in which he sustained grievous injury. According to the prosecution, the deceased as well as the offending truck were proceeding from Assonora to Bicholim and it is claimed that the truck had gone to the right side and had given a dash to the deceased. The truck went ahead and stopped. The driver saw behind and on seeing that the deceased was lying on the road, fled away. Further, according to the prosecution, the accid...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Namdeorao Akre Vs. Rajkumar Bhalerao Balbudhe and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Shri H.S. Chitaley, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states on instructions that respondent No.2 has filed a pursis before the Appellate Court stating that she does not desire to contest the proceedings. Statement accepted. In view of aforesaid statement presence of respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 2. Rule. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. By the present writ petition the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 11.09.2014 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.328/2012 whereby the delay in filing restoration application has been condoned subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-. 4. Brief facts are that the petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.04.1991. Said suit came to be decreed on 10.10.1994. The respondents had filed First Appeal No.101/1995, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge on 02.05.2009. This adjudication was made subject-matter of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Goa Foundation and Another Vs. The North Goa Planning and Developm ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. The above Writ Petition filed by the petitioners inter-alia prays for an appropriate writ to call for the records relating to the sanctions granted vide order dated 29.11.1991 and subsequent revisions/ extensions dated 27.3.1995, 1.10.1996 and 16.07.1997 to the construction of the respondent no.7 and after going through the legality of such permissions to build, if any, quash and set aside the same. The petitioners have also sought for a relief to quash the approval of the respondent no.3 dated 14.06.1991 and also for a direction to the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 to demolish any construction raised on the said plot as a consequence of such permissions. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case based on the record in the above Petition are that the respondent no.2 - Government of Goa issued an advertisement inviting offers for the construction of a hotel in Panaji at Gaspar Dias beach on 07.03.1977. On 28.03.1977, M/s. V. M. Salgaonkar Private Limited submitted a proposal for t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »