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.
Ishwardas Asaram Deosinghani and Another Vs. Kamalkishor Biharilal Kus ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. By consent of learned counsel for both the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The revision applicants question legality, propriety, and correctness of impugned order dated 6.9.2012 whereby learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Katol rejected the application made by defendant Nos.2 and 3. According to the defendants, since the plaintiff had prayed for declaration that the sale deed of the suit property is void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and his legal heirs, the defendants had objected to the suit on the ground that enquiry be made regarding market value and correct value of the suit property to ascertain payment of court-fees and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance in the case of Miss Aninha D'Costa ..vs.. Mrs Parvatibai M. Thakur, reported at AIR 1966 Bombay 113 (V 53 C 17) in order to make submission that under Section 8 of the Bom...
Arifbhai Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
1. The petition is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision No. 97/2011, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The Sessions Court has dismissed the revision filed by present petitioner against the order of issue process made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in SCC No. 45/2011, which is filed as a private complaint by the Food Inspector for offences punishable under sections 7[i] r/w. 2[ia] [a], section 2 [ia][c], 2 [ia] [m] punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short]. Both the sides are heard. 2. In the incident dated 24.10.2010 accused No. 1 was found selling Khoa in open place in Aurangabad. Police had given information to Food Inspector about such sale of Khoa. Food Inspector visited the place and collected sample of 750 grams of Khoa from accused No. 1. He followed the procedure laid down under the Act and sent a sample to ...
IDBI Bank Limited Vs. State of Goa, By Chief Secretary, Secretariat an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition the IDBI Bank Ltd., which is a secured creditor, is challenging the order dated 24th July, 2014 passed by the District Magistrate / Collector, South Goa, District “ Margao, disposing of an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Act of 2002', for short) 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner had sanctioned aggregated loan facility of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (rupees five crores only) to the respondent No.3 on 19th April, 1997, as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. As the respondent No.3 ('borrower' for short) has defaulted in the matter of repayment of the dues, the loan account was classified as a non-performing asset. It appears that the petitioner issued a demand noti...
Deepak Jagannath Suryawanshi Vs. Shantai Bahuuddeshiya Shaikshanik San ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21/02/2015 delivered by the School Tribunal, by which the Misc.Appl.No.34/2014, seeking condonation of delay of 12 days, has been rejected. 3. I have heard Mr.Rane, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Sonawane at length on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2. Learned AGP appears for respondent No.3. 4. I have every reason to be astonished by the conclusions drawn by the School Tribunal, which I would be adverting to in the later part of this judgment. 5. Section 9 of the M.E.P.S.Act enables an aggrieved party to prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the cause of action. Section 9 reads as under: Section 9 Right of appeal to Tribunal to employees of private schools. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the time being in force, 1[any employee in a private school, - (a) who is d...
Jayashri N. Rahebhosle @ Bimabai Rauji Rane Sardessai Vs. Vijay Raghob ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. 2. Heard finally with consent. 3. The dispute is about the construction of a house by the first respondent. The appellant/ plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondents, seeking injunction, restraining the first respondent from effecting the construction and also seeking a direction to the second and third respondents for taking action against the first respondent. It appears that the learned trial Court had passed an order, by which the parties were directed to maintain status-quo. That order was passed on 03/01/2014. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application exhibit 29 on 09/04/2014, purportedly under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C., for short) for taking action against the first respondent for breach of order of status-quo. It appears that another application at exhibit 33 was filed for similar relief. The record shows that the learned Trial Court had called fo...
Raosaheb Patvardhan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Pramod Dattat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both sides for final disposal. 2. The present petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Revision No.155/2012 which was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The revision was filed by the present respondent accused against the order of 'issue process' passed on 27.10.2010 in STC No.438/2005 filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In revision the order of issue process is set aside and the Sessions Court has dismissed the complaint itself. 3. The complaint was filed in respect of dishonor of cheque of Rs.18 lac by the petitioner, a Cooperative Cooperative Credit Society. On the basis of record available, the JMFC had issued process for aforesaid offence. After appearance, the accused filed application at Exh.13 and prayed for giving directions to the complainant to pay necessary Court fees, of Rs.36,000/- in view of the provisions of Court Fees Act. After hear...
Yogesh Balkrishna Kakade Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2015
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter has been finally heard. 2. The Petitioner is accused in S.T.C. No.643 of 2008 pending before J.M.F.C., Sakri, Dist-Dhule, in defamation case filed by Respondent No.2 (hereafter referred as "Complainant"). 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 21st November 2008 in S.T.C. No.279 of 2008 passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." in brief) and subsequent chargesheet filed by police converting the S.T.C. No.279 of 2008 into S.T.C. No.643 of 2008 and subsequent recording of plea. 4. A brief reference needs to be made to the manner in which the present proceedings have developed in the trial Court. The Complainant presented private complaint to the J.M.F.C., Sakri under Section 499, 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief) claiming that the Petitioner (hereafter referred as "Accused") had demanded...
Venkatesh Sadanand Pai Vs. Kanchan A. Shenvi Kakodkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-03-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. By this appeal, the appellant/ complainant is challenging the judgment and order dated 16/12/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Quepem, by which, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). 2. The brief facts are that the appellant was working as a teacher in New Educational Institute, Churchorem, where the husband of the first respondent/ accused was an Headmaster. This is shown to be the reason for acquaintance between the appellant and the first respondent. The appellant came with a case that the first respondent had approached him, for a hand loan from time to time to meet her 'urgent requirements'. According to the appellant, for a period from June 2006 to December, 2007, the appellant had advanced various amounts ranging from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.80,000/- to the respondent, totalling to Rs.7 lakhs. The first respondent had promised to repay the said ...
Balaji Constructions Through Sunil Chandrabhan Mane Vs. Chandrakala Ja ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2015
1. First Appeal is admitted. Notice after admission, made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for final disposal. 2. Substantial questions of law were already formulated as the parties had consented for arguing for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The appeal is filed by the appellant/employer, who is owner of the vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident, for challenging the judgment and order of Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad. The decision is given in Application (WCA) No. 46/2008. Compensation and penalty is awarded in favour of the present respondents-claimants but the Insurance Company is exonerated. As the Insurance company is exonerated, the decision is challenged by the appellant employer. 5. The deceased Jaihind was husband of original claimant Chandrakala. The original claimants 2 and 3 are issues of Jaihind and claimants 4 and 5 are parents of Jaihind. It is the case of...
Pramod Mutalik Vs. The State of Goa, Department of Home, Through Publi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-02-2015
1. Heard Mr. Nagesh Takbhate, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forth. The learned Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the respondents and thereby banned the entry of the petitioner in the State of Goa. Hence, the present petition under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The brief facts of the case may be summarized as follows:- The petitioner is the leader of the organization namely Sri Ram Sene?. Prior to the ban, the petitioner had been to Goa for several times and during his stay at Goa, he visited temples in Goa to seek blessings from the Almighty. 5. The petitioner is doing social activities in a peaceful manner which has irked certain individuals and organizations who cherished in tolerance towards the very right raisin...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »