Mumbai Court July 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.
Datta S. Nadkarni Vs. Salvador Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellant/ complainant is challenging the acquittal of the first respondent/ accused from an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, may be stated thus: That the appellant and the respondent were good friends. The first respondent had approached the appellant on 03/11/2010, requesting for a financial accommodation of Rs.2 Lakhs, as he was in difficulty. Looking to their relationship, the appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the first respondent on loan basis?. On the same day, the first respondent passed a cheque for Rs.2 Lakhs in favour of the appellant, which was drawn on the account of the first respondent with Bank of Baroda, Margao Branch. When the cheque was deposited by the appellant for encashment on 25/04/2011, the same was dishonoured, which was intimated to the appellant on 30/04/2011. Thereafter, the appellant issued a statuto...
Colva Civic and Consumer Forum, through its authorised representatives ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Nigel de Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4, Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. 2. The above petition, inter alia, takes exception to the NOC issued by the respondent No.3 dated 28/3/2007, as well as the construction licence dated 31/3/2007, issued by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.5. The petitioners have also sought a direction to quash the Certificate dated 2/3/2007, issued by the Deputy Collector/respondent No.4 with regard to the conversion of the subject land. 3. Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has pointed out that the respondent No.5 has obtained the...
Abdul Rashid Abdul Latif Musalman Vs. Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition has been admitted by this Court by order dated 26.8.2002. 2. I had heard the learned Advocates on 9.7.2015. Their contentions were recorded as under:- 1. The petitioner is a 76 years old Former Assistant Teacher?. He was convicted by the judgment and order dated 30/12/1977 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon for having committed offences u/s 147, 149, 307 and 323 of the IPC. His Criminal Appeal No.19/1978 was decided by this Court on 11/03/1981. The appeal was partly allowed and the conviction of the petitioner u/s 147 of the IPC was confirmed. Conviction u/s 149 with Section 307 of the IPC was set aside and he was convicted u/s 149 r/w 324 of the IPC. Similarly his conviction u/s 323 of the IPC was also confirmed along with Section 149 of the IPC r/w Section 323 of the IPC. 2. The petitioner submits that by the said judgment dated 11/03/1981, the petitioner was given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (For short,...
Ganesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, learned counsel appearing for the original complainant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that already the application of applicant No.1 Ganesh s/o Mangal Giri and applicant No.4 Shakti d/o Mangal Giri has been dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the adjudication of this application is confined to applicant No.2 Mangal s/o Narayan Giri and applicant No.3 Pushpa w/o Mangal Giri. The learned counsel for applicants invited our attention to the allegations in the F.I.R. and also the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation, and submits that, even if the allegations in the complaint are considered in its entirety, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. It is submitted that, the investigating officer has fil...
Dr. Sumit Vs. Shradha
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2015
1. Heard Shri Soumitra Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for the respondent. 2. Rule. Considering the nature of controversy, the learned Advocates for the respective parties are heard for final hearing. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner and the respondent got married in 2005 in India. At that time, the petitioner-husband was studying Medicine at Michigan, U.S.A. After marriage, the respondent-wife joined the company of the petitioner-husband at Michigan, U.S.A. On 01-09-2006 the couple got a baby girl Shreeya. In May 2014, the respondent came to India to attend the marriage of her brother. The petitioner also attended the marriage and left for U.S.A. on 02-06-2014, and as per the plan, the respondent and minor daughter Shreeya were to leave India on 24-06-2014 for which date the tickets were already booked. However, the respondent did not go to Michigan, U.S.A. According to the petitioner, the respondent and her family members gave f...
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Through its Deputy Regional Dir ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-15-2015
1. By this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948 (the Act of 1948, for short), the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Corporation, for short) is challenging the judgment and order dated 10/09/2007 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court (ESI Court) in ESIC Case No.7 of 2005. By the impugned judgment, ESI Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 77 of the Act of 1948, thereby holding that the respondent establishment is not liable to pay the contribution and interest for the period from 02/07/1977 to 30/06/1996. 2. On 22/10/2008, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the findings of the E.I. Court that claim for contribution has to be made by the corporation within 5 years from the date on which the claim arose and the claim beyond the said period is not tenable in view of proviso to clause (b) of Section 77(1-A), is vitiated in law? (b) Whether proviso to cla...
C-5 Facility and Security Services Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-14-2015
Indira K. Jain, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns corrigendum dated 17th November 2014, issued by the sole respondent BSNL, Nagpur. 3. The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in nutshell, as under: The petitioner is a proprietary concern registered with Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR), an attached Office of the Ex-servicemen Welfare Department, Ministry of Defence under the Union Government. The petitioner is engaged in providing security services throughout the State of Maharashtra to the CPSUs/ CPSEs and also to the Defence Establishment. 4. On 11th February 2013, the petitioner was sponsored by DGR authorities to provide Security Guards to the respondent. On the basis of sponsorship, petitioner participated in the tender process for deployment of Security Guards in urban and rural areas under the Nagpur Telecom District headed by respondent. The petitioner™s tender...
Mannu Kaduba Gavane and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 58/2014 registered with Paithan Police Station, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad, and consequential criminal proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 100/2015, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, under Sections 9, 39, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life [Protection] Act, 1972 [for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as ˜said Act™]. 3. It appears that, on 1st December, 2014, Nandu Sakharam Sonowane, Police Constable, Paithan Police Station, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad, lodged a complaint with the Paithan Police Station, stating that, on receipt of secrete information that a meat of Rabbit [hare] was being cooked with a...
Sanjay Tularamji Bhange Vs. Ujwala Sanjay Bhange
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-14-2015
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Heard. 2. By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant-husband challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur, dated 21.01.2010, dismissing a Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. Few facts giving rise to the Family Court Appeal are stated thus - The appellant-husband had filed a petition against the wife for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court at Nagpur. The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Ballarpur on 26.11.1992 as per the Buddhist rites and custom. After the time of the marriage, the husband was residing at Indora, Nagpur along with his parents and his three unmarried sisters. According to the husband, the wife behaved properly with the husband for some time after the marriage and then started misbehaving with him and his family members. It is pleaded that the wife used to qua...
Sai Wardha Power Company Limited Vs. The Union of India, through its S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-14-2015
Oral Judgment:(Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner-Sai Wardha Power Company Limited, Warora seeks a direction to the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandrapur to forthwith issue the authorization in Form A2 to the petitioner. A declaration that the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of ab initio exemption from service tax in terms of Notification No.12 of 2013 is also sought. 3. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus “ The petitioner is a power generating unit in the Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as SEZ? for the sake of brevity) in Warora. The unit of the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005?). By a Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »