Mumbai Court August 2015 Judgments
Sesa Sterlite Limited Formerly Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. M/ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Original Judgment: 1. Admit. By the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this court is invoked against the order dated 31/07/2014 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai by which order the Notice of Motion filed by the Petitioner/Defendant for referring the parties to arbitration by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be rejected. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of the above Civil Revision Application in brief can be stated thus: A contract was entered into between the Applicant and the Respondent in the matter of providing outbound logistical services to the Petitioner by the Respondent. The said contract is dated 01/10/2010. This was pursuant to the offers that were invited by the Respondent vide an Expression of Interest dated 17/06/2010. In the context of the instant Civil Revision Application the following clauses of the said Contract are material and are reproduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Sampat Dagdu Sandhbour and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as both the appellants were convicted in the same trial that was held by the Sessions Judge for Raigad, at Alibaug. The appellants were prosecuted on the allegations of their having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, after holding a trial, concluded that the offence allegedly committed by the appellants was not the one punishable under Section 302 of the IPC but the offence of causing simple hurt, punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. As such, he convicted them of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced each of them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default sentence of one month. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Naik Vs. The State of Goa, through the Secretary, Department o ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Prabhudessai waives service for respondents no.1 and Mr. P. Lotlikar waives service for respondent no.3. Heard finally with consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner (original defendant no.3) is challenging the order dated 21/1/2015 passed by the learned District Judge below application at Exhibit 87/D in Civil Suit No.3/2008. By the impugned order, the application (Exhibit 87/D) filed by the third respondent (original plaintiff), for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. 3. The brief facts are that the third respondent has instituted civil suit no.3/2008 for permanent injunction in which the State of Goa is the defendant no.1, while the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa is the second defendant. The petitioner happens to be the third defendant in the suit. 4. As per the plaint allegations the case made out is that the third respondent which is a Private Ltd. Company was having a Diploma of Concession bear...
Tag this Judgment!Lokhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Lokhandw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Both suits are actions in passing off. The Plaintiffs, a group of builders well known in Mumbai, seek to restrain the Defendants from using the word Lokhandwala? or any other expression similar to it as part of their corporate name, trading style or in relation to their business. The Defendants are also in the construction business. 2. Notice of Motion No. 4244 of 2006 in Suit No. 3979 of 2002 has been pending for nine years. In the meantime, the Plaintiffs had filed an earlier Notice of Motion. That was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, and Notice of Motion No. 4244 of 2006 came to be filed in consequence. 3. The Plaintiffs also brought a second Suit No. 2442 of 2007 and filed Notice of Motion No. 3300 of 2007 in that suit. In that Notice of Motion, the Defendants made a statement on 4th September 2007 that the 1st Defendant would not commence or enter into commercial activities till the final disposal of the suit. That ad-interim order has continu...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Warora dated 14.09.2012 in Sessions Case No. 8/2011 by which the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three moths. 2. The necessary facts for the decision of the appeal are narrated hereunder. Panjabrao Madavi (PW9) was attached to Police Station, Chimur as Police Inspector. In February-2011, Rekha Shedame (PW2) came to the police station and gave her oral report. It is dated 04.02.2011 (Exh.15). Panjabrao Madavi (PW9) registered an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal code. The printed FIR is at Exh.16. The crime was registered vide C.R. No. 11/2011. As per the oral report of Rekha (PW2), she is Upasarpancha of Gat Gram Panchayat, Satara. The appellant is having his house in the s...
Tag this Judgment!Balasaheb and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
S. V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petitions assail same notification and seek the same declaration. The challenge to the notification and declaration is based on same set of facts and law, as such to avoid rigmarole the petitions are decided together. 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions are residents within the territorial limits of Satara Deolai Municipal Council. Initially Satara and Deolai were separate Gram Panchayats. After following the procedure as enumerated in the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as to the "Municipal Councils Act" for the sake of brevity) vide notification dated 28.08.2014, Satara Deolai Municipal Council was constituted including the territories as specified in the said notification. After establishment of the Satara Deolai Municipal Council, the Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod @ Gujju and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.157/09, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 364 R/W 34 and Section 302 R/W 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default to suffer further R.I. for six months under Section 302 R/W 34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentencing the accused to suffer imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/each and in default to suffer further R.I. for one month under Section 364 R/W 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present appeals. 2. The prosecution story as could be gathered from the material placed on record is that the deceased Rakesh “ the son of PW.1 Ramesh Shahu was having love affair with Pranita, the niece of accused no.1. It appears to be the prosecution case tha...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Bapu Shinde and Others Vs. Add. Dist Collector and Special Lan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. The Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the orders both dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.4, Satara, by which orders, the application filed by the Applicant/Applicants abovenamed for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be rejected on the ground of limitation. The Applicant/Applicants are the persons from whom lands have been acquired for the Vang Irrigation Project? and more especially for the rehabilitation of the persons affected by the said project. It appears that after following the gamut of the process as contemplated by the said Act, an Award came to be declared in respect of the lands of the Applicants on 29.01.2003. In so far as the Applicant Shri. Mahadeo Bapu Shinde is concerned, the land to the extent of 32 Ares was acquired and in so far as the Applicants Smt. Parvati Tukaram...
Tag this Judgment!Kishor T. Naik Salgaokar and Another Vs. Ashok Tukaram Naik Salgaokar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 20.09.2014 passed by the Principal District Judge, Panaji, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 124/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge has refused to condone delay of about two years and six months, in filing an application for restoration of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 73/2003, which was dismissed on default on 07.09.2009. 3. The brief facts are that, the dispute between the parties was referred to the learned Arbitrator, who passed an interim award on 29.01.2003. That award was challenged by the petitioners in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for short) before the learned District Judge, Panaji, in Arbitration Application No. 73/2003. It appears that the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Sitaram Sinai Kakodkar and Another Vs. The Conservator of Fore ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 20.11.2006 on the following substantial question of law : (i) Whether the learned Courts below after finding that the appellants had proved that the appellants were the owners in possession of the suit property which according to the appellants was wrongly included in survey nos. 98 and 97 and that the respondents had not proved that the entire land bearing Survey nos. 97/1 and 98/1 was reserved forest known as "Cudeladongor" belonging to the Forest Department were right in dismissing the appellants' suit? 3. Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has pointed out that the Appellants are the owners in possession of a property known as "Ponsoibandulam" or "Zazabandavangon" situated at Colomb which is described in the Land Registrati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »