Mumbai Court August 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.
Bharatsing Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
Per Court: (R.M. Borde, J.) 1. Petitioners, whose landed property has been acquired for public purpose, are seeking directions against respondents to take decision on the application tendered under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, for redetermination of amount of compensation on the basis of judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeal No. 569/1997, decided on 23.03.2009. 2. Agricultural lands belonging to petitioners have been acquired for development of irrigation project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after observing the procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, declared award on 04.06.1977. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the State Authority, claimant, covered by the same section 4 notification as in the case of petitioners, presented Land Acquisition Reference no. 129/1983, whereas one another claimant presented separate reference application being Land Acquisition Reference No. 123/2003, which applications came to be decided by...
Harish Dhirajlal Bilakhiya Vs. Ashish Jagdish Upadhya and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in M.A.C.P. No.266 of 2001 decided on 26.8.2003. 2. The brief facts are as under: The claimant was engaged in the business of selling metal articles and was having a shop at Tilak Road, Akola. On 27.2.2000, when the claimant namely Harish Dhirajlal Bilakhiya was going by his motor cycle from his shop towards his residence at Jatharpeth, Akola, a Maruti Car bearing registration no.MH-30B/7984 dashed the claimant injuring him in his leg, back, shoulder etc. The claimant was rushed to the hospital of Dr. Murarka. It is claimed that he sustained permanent disability of 18% and was required to spend a sum of Rs.92,000/- towards medical treatment etc. According to the claimant, the offending motor vehicle was driven by one Ashish Jagdish Upadhay while one girl Guddi was sitting beside him. When inquiry was made with the R.T.O., it revealed that the motor vehicle bear...
Neeta Lalit Sanghavi and Another Vs. Dharamdas Vanmalidas Sanghavi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
1. By this petition filed under sections 9 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act?) the petitioners seek condonation of delay in filing the present petition and have prayed for setting aside the termination of the proceedings by the arbitral tribunal contained in the impugned award dated 29th October, 2007 and have prayed for constitution of the arbitral tribunal as per the arbitration agreement contained in the Deed of Partnership dated 20th October, 1962. The petitioners have also prayed for continuation of the order dated 31st October, 2002 passed by this Court in Arbitration Petition No.470 of 2002, appointing the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay of all the partnership assets, including the properties particularly described in Exhibit A? to the petition and for other reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The father of the petitioners Mr.Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi, the respondent no.1...
Pramod Shivaji Thorat and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
P.C. 1. This Application is moved for bail, as the applicants/accused are facing charges under sections 147, 354, 323, 504, 506, 452, 306, 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The offence is registered at the instance of victim in C.R. No.88 of 2015 at Yawat Police Station, District Pune on 2nd April, 2015. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that there is dispute between the family of the complainant and family of the applicants/accused in respect of courtyard. The applicant/accused wanted to erect cement poll in the courtyard which was objected by the mother of the complainant, therefore, the applicants/accused and co-accused assaulted her mother. At that time, complainant intervened, so the applicants/accused assaulted her also. They abused her by caste. They pulled her. She apprehended that as her modesty is outraged, she would be sexually assaulted more. She warned the applicants not to come forward and...
M/s. GIC Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and invoking section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as well, the Petitioners are seeking to quash a criminal complaint being M. E. R. C. No. 7 of 2006 and an order passed therein, under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, pursuant to which, a FIR has been registered at Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai. 2. The Petitioners are inter alia M/s. General Insurance Corporation Finance Limited (M/s. GIC Finance Limited). It is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its corporate office at the address mentioned in the cause title. Petitioner No. 1 is promoted by General Insurance Corporation of India and other insurance companies being M/s. United India Company Limited, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited etc. Petitioner No. 2 is the managing direct...
Hiken Naresh Shah Vs. The Board of Control For Cricket in India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who is a cricketer by profession, has challenged his suspension order dated 12th July, 2015 which was passed by the President of the Respondent. This suspension order inter alia states that pending the final decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Respondent, the Petitioner is suspended with immediate effect from participating in any affairs of the Board including suspension from participating in any form of the game of cricket held by or under the aegis of the BCCI and/or its affiliates, until final adjudication. The ground on which the suspension order has been assailed is that the principles of natural justice were grossly violated before passing this suspension order, and therefore, the same was liable to be set aside by us in our equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts germane to decide the present controversy are tha...
Pius Varghese Pullikottil and Another Vs. Neptune Ventures and Develop ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
1. The plaintiff has sued upon an agreement of flat purchase. The plaintiff has paid certain installments for the flat. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are stated to have unilaterally increased the price of the suit flat, which the plaintiff has not accepted. The plaintiff claims specific performance of the initial agreement between the parties which is acted upon by both the parties. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 have allotted the suit flat to defendant Nos. 5 and 6 upon yet higher amount of the total consideration, but upon payment of a very paltry amount by defendant Nos. 5 and 6. The plaintiff claims the act of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to be fraudulent and has sued for specific performance of the contract and applied for the relief of the appointment of Court Receiver and the usual injunctions in the notice of motion. 2. The plaintiff has filled up a booking form on 27th April, 2009, Exhibit-C to the plaint, for purchase of the suit flat No.504 in B-wing of the suit building directly with th...
Noble Resources Ltd. Vs. Twenty First Century Wire Roads Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
1. By this petition filed under Sections 44 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act?), the petitioner seeks a declaration that the arbitral award dated 21st November 2011 is enforceable and executable as a decree of this Court and seeks various other reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. On or about 9th May 2008, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a contract by which the petitioner agreed to buy and the respondent agreed to sell 45,000 mt iron-ore fines on the terms and conditions stated in the contract. Clause 15 of the said contract provided for arbitration in case disputes or differences between the parties arising out of the said contract. The said clause reads as under:- Arbitration:- All disputes or differences whatsoever arising between the parties out of or This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and any dispute arising ou...
Rambhau Mahadeorao Tembhurkar, since dead, through LRs.: and Others Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Since the question whether the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would apply to the acquisitions under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 arises for determination in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The lands of the petitioners were acquired under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the MID Act? for the sake of brevity) by the notifications issued under Section 32 of the MID Act in the years 1988-89. Separate awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the lands of the petitioners and certain other land-holders in the year 1991-92. Being aggrieved by the grant of meagre compensation, some landholders filed reference under the provi...
Ashish Anil Gaonkar Vs. Sr. Superintendent Officer, Department of Post ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 3. The above petition, inter alia, prays for a writ, direction, or order to quash and set aside an order dated 15th May, 2015 bearing No. B-II/AAG/MMS/Driver/Termination/15-16. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner, who has studied Xth Standard, received summons from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim in respect of a case No.IPC. Criminal Case No.6/S/2013/C for committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner, accordingly, attended the proceedings on 20th March, 2014 before the learned Magistrate, wherein, being a minor motor accident, the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »