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.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shaikh Rahim and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
1. Heard Mr.A.R.Kaplay, learned Counsel holding for Mr.A.M.Quazi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Sanket Charpe, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. 2. This appeal questions validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dt.22-02-2011 passed in Application (WCA) No.6 of 2007 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's (Employees) Compensation Act, Amravati and the order dt.22-09-2009 on Exh. 2 (No fault liability). 3. The brief facts are that respondent Sheikh Rahim s/o. Sheikh Yusuf - a Coolie, who was travelling on a truck, met with an accident. He filed the proceedings under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 for the accident that occurred with alleged 40% disability and injuries allegedly suffered while working as a Coolie. The claimant was engaged as a Loader by the owner of the truck. According to the appellant, he was travelling on the top of the truck bearing registration no. KA-19-AB-2106. The Loader/Coolie had, after the accident occurred, underwent the medical trea...
Rammurti and Others Vs. Rudresh B. Tiwari and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard submissions at the Bar. This appeal by legal representatives of the deceased victim of the Motor vehicle accident Ramprakash Mishra questions the legality of the impugned judgment and order dated passed by the Learned Member of the Motor Accident Tribunal, Nagpur in the proceedings of the Claim Petition No.415 of 1995. Under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act the ˜No fault? liability claim was made for compensation in the sum of Rs 25,000/-. On 19-12-1995 compensation was granted accordingly together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The insurer Company deposited the sum of Rs 29,750/-. The Claim Petition No.415 of 1995 was dismissed and the Tribunal directed the refund of the amount from the claimants to the Insurer. 2. It is case of the appellants that the death of the deceased Ramprakash Mishra, aged about 45 years of age the business as stone crusher, had occurred as a result of the Motor vehicle accident when driver of the offending Truck regis...
Anju Timblo, Managing Director of Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. Mr. Rohit De Sa, the learned Counsel waives service for the respondents. 4. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. These appeals under Section 10F of Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for short) arise out of the order dated 18/05/2015, passed by the Company Law Board (CLB), New Delhi on C.A. No.5/C.1/2013 and C.A. No.58/C.1/2013 in C.P. No. 87/2006. All the appeals involve common and connected questions of law and as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. The facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeals, may be stated thus : Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Private Ltd. (SFIPL) is a Company incorporated under the Act. The said Company was promoted by late Shri Modu Timblo (MT) in the year 1956. The Company is engaged in the business of mining in Goa and is considered as one of the best mining Corporations. The Company is said to be flagship of Fomento Group of Companies. I...
Manisha and Others Vs. Umakant Marotrao Kolhe and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. The appeal is against the judgment and order dated 29-03-2011 passed by learned member, Motor accident claim Tribunal-2 at Nagpur in Claim application no 605 of 2005 whereby the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for sum of Rupees Fifteen Lakhs was dismissed. 2. Facts briefly mentioned are: Mr Prakash Deorao Patil, aged 37 years, was travelling at Bina T-point from Bina Sangam by Motor Cycle bearing registration no. MH-31-AT-9769 on 07-01-2005 at about 7.30 p.m. on Road in front of Mahadeo Hedao™s field House. The Motor Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.MH-31-H-2770 gave forcible dash to the motorcycle from behind it. Prakash died as result of the accident. Owner of the offending motor vehicle did not dispute the involvement of the later mentioned Tata Sumo vehicle and fact of the accident (W.S. Exhibit 18 para No.2). The deceased left behind his dependents viz. widow Manisha aged 29 years, son Chaitany...
Usha Vs. Uddhav
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of respective parties. 2. This Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is filed by wife against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application No.114/2010 under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 15.07.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagbhid in Misc. Criminal Application No.38/2008 granting maintenance @ of Rs. 1000/- per month to the extent of applicant no.1wife. 3. Facts giving rise to the present Application may be stated in brief as under: (i) Applicant was married to non-applicant on 14.4.2005. After marriage, applicant started residing at her matrimonial house at Ratnapur in Taluka Sindewahi, District Chandrapur along with her husband and mother-in-law. (ii) It is the contention of applicant that immediately afte...
Ajinka Shailesh Pandav Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anothe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2015
P.C. 1. Criminal Application No.597 of 2015 moved by the original complainants for intervention are allowed. 2. Criminal Application No.1064 of 2015 is moved for bail, as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 37(1)(3) r/w. 135 of the Bombay Police Act in C.R. No.I-99 of 2014 registered with New Panvel Police Station, Navi Mumbai. 3. The incident of murder has taken place on 23rd July, 2014 at around 7.15 p.m. On the same day at around 2.30 p.m. when the complainant Vishwas Pundalik Patil along with his cousin brother went to Ghadeshwar Dam for party. When they were having food, they invited the applicant/accused for a company, at that time, one Ashok Patil, who was with the complainant, made query about the girls who were with applicant/accused. The applicant/accused got enraged and threatened that he would see them. At 7.15 p.m. when complainant and his brother went to the parents of the app...
Anajanbai Mahadeo Thorave and Another Vs. Subhadra Pralhad Thorave and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2015
1. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugns the order dated 26 March 2014 passed by the Respondent No.3-Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) whereby the Respondent No.1 was certified as the occupant of Shop No.5, Building No.215-22A, Kalachawky Road, D.L. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai - 400 012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Shop No.5') and it was directed that Respondent No.1 be given possession of Shop No.5 after redevelopment. Consequently, the name of the Petitioners as occupants of Shop No.5 was deleted from the list of occupants. 2. One Mahadeo Shankar Thorave (hereinafter referred to as 'Mahadeo') was the tenant of Shop No.5. He died on or about 26 February 1990. The tenancy in respect of Shop No.5 was transferred to the name of the Petitioners Nos.1 and 2, being the wife and son respectively of Mahadeo. Respondent No.1 is wife of the other son of Mahadeo. In or about 2001-02, the tenants of th...
Prakash Arun Apte Vs. Narendra Co-operative Housing Society Limited an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. At the outset, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks deletion of the Respondent No.2 from the array of the Respondents as according to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in the context of the challenge raised in the above Petition, the Respondent No.2 is not a necessary party. The Respondent No.2 is accordingly deleted at the risk of the Petitioner. 2. Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 28-8-2014 passed by the Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, by which order, the application for deemed conveyance filed under Section 11(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flat Act, 1963 (for short the said Act), by the Respondent No.1 society came to be allowed and the deemed conveyance of the property mentioned in the c...
Nandakumar Sharad Parab Vs. Nhanu Sahadeo Savant and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 27-8-2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, by which order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 herein came to be allowed and resultantly the order dated 18-2-2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Sindhudurg, came to be set aside. 3. The Petitioner contested the elections to the Grampanchayat Tulas Talluka Vengurla, District Sindhudurg, which elections were held on 26-11-2012. The Petitioner was elected in the said elections. The Petitioner therefore came to be elected as Upa Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat on 24-12-2012. Prior to the elections of the Grampanchayat, the Petitioner who is a Civil Contractor was awarded the contract of repairs to the residential quarters of the drivers attached to the primary health center. The work under the said contract was to be complet...
Shankar Lakhu Poojari and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2015
P.C. 1. The application is moved for pre-arrest bail as the applicants/accused are apprehending arrest in C.R. No.133 of 2015 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Vishrambaug police station, Sangli. The Labour Officer Sheetal Sadashiv Kulkarni gave information to the police on 2.6.2015 about the offence committed by the applicants/accused, who are Chairman and Secretary of one Nivara Construction Labour Union. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicants/accused, being office bearers of this Labour Union, had submitted nearly 2264 applications for registration as labour workers. After getting registration as labour workers, such persons would be entitled to certain benefits under the scheme including some monetary benefits. As per the case of the prosecution, after verification, it was found that at village Vasugude, 21 out of 23 persons were not building labourers. So also, at Kavathetakand, 13 out of...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »