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.
M/s. Dattakrupa Construction and Another Vs. M/s. Shah Velji Karman an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
Oral Judgment:- 1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. This civil revision application challenges orders dated 27 May 2013 and 13 May 2015 made by the trial Court as well as appeal Court decreeing the respondent's regular civil suit no. 589 of 2003 and declaring that the respondent is entitled to get possession of shop no. 5 admeasuring 415 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the new building situated at Chendani, Naikwadi, Gokhale Road, Thane (West) constructed in place of Shridhar Bhavan building, and further for directions to the petitioners to hand over and deliver the possession of the such shop (suit premises) to the respondent within two months from the date of the decree, as and by way of tenanted premises. 3. Mr. Datar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has basically raised two submissions in support of the civil revision application. (A) That in the present case there were neither any plea...
Dattatraya Bhimrao Dhadam Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
P.C. 1. The application is moved for bail as the applicant/accused is facing charge for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.R. No.RCBA1/2015/A0018 registered with CBI ACB, Mumbai. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Dwarkanand Dicholkar has given the first information report. He was running a Lodging and Boarding house at Mumbai-Goa national highway No.17, Sindhudurg Nagri, Oras. It is his case that, the people from PWD Department were taking measurement of the land in front of his Lodge as the expansion of highway is going to commence. The complainant was informed that the access to his Lodging and Boarding from highway will be closed after width expansion work of the highway. Therefore, the complainant was asked to contact the applicant. He contacted him. At that time, the applicant/accused demanded bribe of Rs. 5,50,000/- for getting access road from his lodge to the highway. It was agreed that the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/...
M/s. Henkel Chemicals (I) Ltd. and Another Vs. Garware Nylons Limited ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
1. This application is for seeking validation under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") of (i) a pledge agreement between the Applicant and the Company in liquidation, (ii) invocation of the pledge and (iii) transfer of shares belonging to the Company in liquidation. 2. Garware Nylons Limited is a Company in liquidation (hereinafter referred to as the Company?). The Applicant was a purchaser of yarn from the Company before the winding up petition was presented. Since its inception in the year 1975, the Applicant has been purchasing yarn from the Company. On 8 October 1992, the present Company Petition was filed against the Company. Subsequent to the filing of this petition, a reference was filed by the Company before BIFR. The reference was registered as Case No.46 of 1993. As a result of the reference, the winding up proceedings could not proceed. The Company, however, continued to carry on its business during the pendency of the reference. During this period, the Co...
Vilas Devraj Bhange and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
1. Criminal Application No.466 of 2015 filed by the original complainant for intervener is allowed. 2. Criminal Application No.791 of 2015 is moved for pre-arrest bail, as the applicants/accused are facing charges under section 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1999 and under section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. One Hanumant Vitthal Mane gave information to the police on 16th May, 2015, pursuant to which, an offence was registered at C.R. No.69 of 2015 of Walchandnagar Police Station, Indapur, District Pune. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant belonged to Kaikadi community and the accused knew the family of the complainant very well. On 16th May, 2015, he received information that there was quarrel between his brother Yeshwant Mane and applicant No.1 Vilas Devraj in respect of accounts of Gram Panchayat. He, therefore, went to Gram Panch...
Remediana Fernandes Vs. The Passport Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waives service. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that: It is the contention of the Petitioner that the birth date of the Petitioner as reflected in the birth certification of the Petitioner is 17.04.1969. It is further her case that in all public documents such as the driving licence, PAN card, election card, the date of birth of the Petitioner is shown as 17.04.1969. It is further her case that the Passport issued to the Petitioner bearing no. G9596698 by inadvertence, the date of birth of the Petitioner is shown as 17.04.1963 which is clearly an error. The Petitioner states that when she realised about the said mistake in the date of birth as shown in the passport, she i...
Dr. Hema Vijay Menon Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary o ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether a mother is entitled to avail maternity leave, though she begets the child through surrogacy. 3. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus: The petitioner is a highly qualified Lecturer who has participated in several National and International Seminars and Symposiums in law and is often invited as a guest faculty at several institutions to deliver lectures on various subjects of law. On 28.07.2010, the petitioner lost her only son who was 15 years of age. The petitioner and her husband suffered severe mental trauma due to the loss of their only son and decided to bear a child. The petitioner went through five cycles of In Vitro Fertility (IVF) procedures at Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai, to conceive the child, however, due to certain ...
State of Goa Vs. M/s. Caryl Pharma and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the State is challenging the acquittal of the respondents from an offence punishable under Section 18(a)(I) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act, for short). 2. Brief facts are that PW1 Mrs. Jyoti Sardessai, who is the complainant in this case, and a Drugs Inspector, had visited the premises of M/s. Matrix Pharma, Ponda, Goa on 14/01/2004 and collected the sample of a medicine 'Caryrox', Batch No.C202, which is a patent and proprietary medicine. It is a suspension of a generic drug 'Roxithromycin'. The drug was manufactured by the respondent no.3 of which the respondent no.4 is a proprietor under loan license from the respondent no.1, of which the respondent no.2 is a proprietor. The manufacturing date of medicine is July, 2002 and the expiry was shown as June 2004. According to the prosecution, the sample was collected as per the established procedure. When the sample was sent for analysis by the State Laboratory in Go...
Jayshree Vijay Mundaware Vs. The Principal/Head Mistress and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Main punctum is maintainability of the writ petition against an unaided private minority educational institution/school, at the instance of parents, whose children are expelled/debarred from the school/college of such institution, because of stated misbehavior and/or bad behaviour of the mother/father/child's relative and/or for non-payment of disputed enhanced fee/payment. If yes, entitlement of reliefs on merit. 2. The Petitioner's son “ Master Pavan, aged about 12 years, was admitted to Respondent No.1-School (the school?) in June 2010 in Grade II. Her daughter “ Ms. Rutuja, aged about 16 years, was admitted to the Respondent School in June 2012 in Standard IX. The School terminated the admission of both the children unilaterally by issuing them Transfer Certificates'/'Leaving Certificates' on 03/06/2013 with an accompanied letter also to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. On this certificate the reason for leaving the school was mentioned as ...
Deepak Bhimraj Kamble Vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Learned Advocates for both the sides have stated that they have no objection if this Court hears this matter. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.2012, delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. The relevant prayer made in this petition reads as under:- (A) By issuing appropriate writ, order, direction or any other order in nature of Writ, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 19.3.2012 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision (ULP) No. 86 of 2011, thereby confirming judgment and order passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 28 of 2004.? (Should be read as Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 28 of 2004). 5. This petition is prosecuted by Smt. Sangita Deepak Kamble, who is the legal representat...
Narayan Waingankar and Others Vs. Archdiocese of Goa and Daman Pacopat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the original defendants are challenging the concurrent finding, by which the suit filed by the respondent/original plaintiff, for mandatory and permanent injunction, has been decreed. 2. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the suit simpliciter for injunction was maintainable? 2. Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit in the absence of relief of declaration of title ? 3. The parties were put to notice and have been heard on the aforesaid substantial questions of law and the appeal is being disposed of accordingly. 4. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the appeal, may be stated thus : That the respondent filed a suit against the appellant no.1. According to the plaint allegations, the respondent is a religious institution and the suit was filed under the General Power of Attorney dated 30/06/1994 of father Victor Rodrigues. It was the material ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »