Mumbai Court July 2015 Judgments
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Dolphin Offshore ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
A.K. Menon, J. 1. By this common judgment and order we dispose of two appeals. The order impugned in these appeals dated 19.9.2005 is passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, setting aside the findings of the arbitral tribunal on one specific issue pertaining to rate of conversion to be adopted in respect of claim for reimbursement of costs of spares and consumables. 2. The brief facts which led to passing of the arbitral award and subsequent challenge under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are as under: The appellant Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) in Appeal No.1079 of 2005 entered into an agreement dated 10 November 1993 with the respondent Dolphin Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Contractor) for operation and management of marine and diving services on board ONGC's vessel 'MSV SAMUDRA PRABHA'. Under the contract the contractor was required to provide consumables and spares and undertake repairs with the...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Krishna Pukale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. The Appellants, who stand convicted by the Ad-Hoc Sessions Judge, Solapur by Judgment dated 20th September, 2008 in Sessions Case No.235 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months; for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months; and for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months, by this Appeal challenge their conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- PW-1 Vitthal Khamitkar is the brother of deceased Lilawati. Her marriage with Appellant No.1 had taken place in the year 1990. Appellant No.2 is the son ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Ambadas Hatgale and Others Vs. The Divisional Controller and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners in these three petitions are identically situated. All three of them were appointed as Cleaners? on daily-wages at the rate of Rs.3/- per bus. All three of them claimed to have worked for a short duration of about two to three years. The Respondent is common in all these petitions. The issue that needs to be determined by this Court is common in all these petitions. I have, therefore, taken up these three petitions together for hearing and passing orders. 3. The Petitioner, in the first petition, claims to have worked from November, 1988 to 31.12.1990. He was orally terminated on 31.12.1990. 4. In the second petition, the Petitioner claims to have worked from January, 1991 and was orally terminated from 31.12.1992. 5. In the third petition, the Petitioner claims to be working from January, 1988 and was orally terminated on 31.12.1990. 6. All these three Petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Amol Sahebrao Solanke Vs. The Tahsildar, Kanzara and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition by consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This petition was assigned to this Court pursuant to the direction dated 30.6.2015 from the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court. 3. The facts of the case, are thus: The petitioner is contesting the general elections as Member of Kanzara village panchayat to be held on 4.8.2015 from Ward No.2 of the said village panchayat. Respondent No.1/Tahsildar, Kanzara village, Taluka Mangrulpir and respondent No.2/Anil Bhaurao Yewtikar are appointed as returning officer to held elections of village panchayat of Kanzara pursuant to election notice dated 4.7.2015 issued by respondent No.1/Tahsildar, Kanzara, Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 returning officer could not have considered nomination form of respondent No.3 Sunil Namdeorao Harne for contesting the election as Member of the village pancha...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Twin and Deccan Builders and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. Rule in both petitions. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 waive service. Respondent no.5 is a formal party. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and at their request, taken up for final hearing. 1. In these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners assail the constitutional validity of sections 14 and 17 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short 'Slum Act'), the proceedings initiated by respondent nos.1 to 4 for acquisition of the petitioner's land under the provisions of section 14 (1) of the Slum Act, the notification dated 1st September 2010 issued by respondent no.4 being a declaration to acquire the land of the petitioners under section 14 of the Slum Act and the Award dated 24th August 2011 passed by the respondent no.2 under section 17 of the Slum Act. 2. As regards the prayers challenging the constitutional validity of section 14 and 17 ...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Goel Vs. Austin M. Gracious and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, Assistant Collector of Customs, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 28th September 1993 passed in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.1233 of 1988, thereby acquitting the respondent nos.1 and 2 from the offences punishable under Sections 29, 21 read with Section 8(c) and under Sections 30 read with 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) and under Section 135(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short Customs Act). 2. The facts which give rise and are necessary to decide the present appeal can briefly be stated thus: (i) That on 27.2.1988, the officers of the Customs Department were informed by their Additional Collector Shri L.D. Arora and the Superintendent Mr. T.S. Jayaram (PW No.4) to remain present in the office, as some secrete information was to be worked out. In pursuance of the said information, the raid was to be conducted at a godown situated at...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Keshav Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this appeal, appellant-original accused questions the Judgment and Order dated 21/8/2010 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 623 of 2004, finding him guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- or in default thereof to suffer further RI for three months. He has been acquitted of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution case in brief is, deceased Usha, wife of present appellant, originally resided in Mahur Tahsil of Nanded District, while appellant resided at Pawnala, Tahsil Mahur, District “ Nanded. They were married about five years before death of Usha and it was a love marriage. They have a daughter by name Pragati. Appellant-accused used to come to Mumbai intermittently for work. One month prior to the incidence, family came to Mumbai and was residing at...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Jay Construction Co. Vs. The Custodian of the Enemy Property and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, we have, with the consent of parties, heard the Petition finally. 2. Hence, Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, dated 16th May, 2014. 4. The Petitioner is also aggrieved and dissatisfied with the sealing of the immovable property under a notice dated 19th May, 2014, issued by the Custodian of the Enemy Property (Respondent No. 1). 5. The Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business as Builder and Developer. It is the case of the Petitioner that land admeasuring 2862.9 square meters situated at Survey No. 276, Hissa No. 4(part) at H-Ward No. 1068(2), Street No. 760, C. T. S. No. B/973/4, Chapel Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the said property?) was purchased by one Ms. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Mahadeo Powar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2006 decided on 11/05/2007 by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge “ 5, Kolhapur, has assailed his conviction under Section 376 (2) (c) of the Indian Penal Code whereby he is sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- or in default thereof to suffer RI for six months. He has been acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 506 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos.2 to 7 tried with him have been acquitted. Accused No.2 has been acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 376(2)(c) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, while accused nos.3 to 7 have been acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(c) and 354 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is to be noted that acquittal of accused no.1 under other sections and all other accused persons was questioned by State Government by moving an application, seeking leave under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: (B) The chargesheet and proceedings of Sessions Case No.255/2014 pending before the Court of Sessions, Aurangabad offences U/sec.307, 498A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the Penal Code crime No.I-13/2013 registered with police station MIDC Aurangabad initiated on the basis of the chargesheet filed against the present petitioner be quashed and set aside;? Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, a lady namely Supriya w/o Vishal Sudke r/o Shradha colony (MHADA), HIG-13, Opp. Dhoot Hospital Mukundwadi Aurangabad lodged a complaint with P.S. MIDC CIDCO U/sec. 307, 323, 506 of I.P.Code against her husband alleging inter alia that the marriage between them was solemnized in 2008. The couple has been blessed with two children, one boy namely Harshad 5 years and a girl namely Mitali. 3. It is alleged that the complainant was treated well ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »