Mumbai Court August 2015 Judgments
Auduth Modu Timblo and Another Vs. Dilip Modu Timblo and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
1. All these Company Appeals involve common and connected questions of law and fact. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These four appeals represent two sets of cross appeals, one each by, Auduth Timblo (AT) being Company Appeal Nos. 1/2013 and 2/2013 and the other by his brother, Dilip Timblo (DT) being Company Appeal Nos. 7/2013 and 8/2013. It would be sufficient to set out the facts in Company Appeal No. 2/2013. Background Facts: 3. The brief facts are that Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Private Limited (SFIPL), (Company, for short) is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for short) with authorised share capital of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only), divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs.100/- each and 50,000 unclassified shares of Rs.100/- each. The paid up share capital is Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs), divided into 25,000 equity shares of Rs.100/- each. The Company is in the business of extraction and sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Gomati @ Radha Tima Gaude and Others Vs. Dy. Collector and S. D.O., Po ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original applicants against the judgment and award passed by the leaned Principal District Judge, Panaji Goa, in Land Acquisition Case No. 55/1996 dated 02.04.2011 by which the claim under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The applicants/appellants have preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Initially, it was heard and decided by the Reference Court and the amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs.15/- per square metres to Rs.23/- per square metre as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the applicants/appellants have preferred First Appeal bearing No.137 of 2003 which was decided by this Court by judgment dated 13.08.2010 and the matter was remanded back to the Reference Court for adducing additional evidence. After the remand, the Reference Court has recorded evidence and after having heard both th...
Tag this Judgment!Tanay Raghoba Mandrekar Vs. M/s. Sol Rio Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Through its ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Thali waives service for the respondent. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner who is the original defendant is challenging the order dated 23/4/2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Bicholim in Regular Civil Suit No.39/2006/B, by which the Civil Court has refused to refer the issue no.7 to the Mamlatdar for the second time. The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 29/6/2015 passed by the learned Mamlatdar thereby refusing to set aside the order of dismissal of default and refusing to restore reference to file. 3. The brief facts are that in a suit filed by the respondent, the petitioner raised a contention based on his alleged mundkarial rights. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as 11 issues. Issue no.7 which is relevant for the present purpose, reads as under: Whether the defendant proves that his late father Raghoba Krishna Mandrekar was ...
Tag this Judgment!Mehendi Qasim Sheikh and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
P.C. : 1. Heard learned appointed Counsel for the applicant original accused in Sessions Case No. 290/2011. 2. Initially, present application was filed as a Criminal Revision Application No. 350 of 2015. However, this Court vide order dated 31st July, 2015 directed the present application to be registered as an application under section 407 of Cr.P.C. Said order was passed by this Court (Coram M.L. Tahaliyani, J). Thereafter, the present application was required to be numbered as Criminal Application No. 468 of 2015. Earlier on hearing the learned appointed Counsel, an ad-interim relief was granted by this Court on 31st July, 2015 directing the trial Court not to proceed further with the matter. 3. The present application for transfer is mainly on the ground that the concerned trial Court is bias and the Trial Court not following due procedure of law during the trial. The arguments were heard at length on the earlier date i.e. 25th August, 2015 and when the matter was taken up for dict...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Efkon (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M.B. Gajbhiye, Asstt. Pos ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
1. This Arbitration Application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and seeks the appointment of a sole Arbitrator. The petition as initially filed was by two petitioners Efkon (India) Pvt. Ltd., and ELogistics Pvt Ltd,. The respondents are the Assistant Post Master General (Mails), the Department of Post India and the State of Maharashtra. At the request of the applicants they were allowed to delete respondent no. 3the State, vide order dated 9th May 2012. The record reveals that a notice invoking arbitration was first issued to the respondent on 9th May 2012. Thereafter Writ Petition No. 319 of 2012 was filed by the applicant in respect of the same subject matter. This Writ Petition was withdrawn by the applicant on 23rd February 2012, with liberty to invoke the arbitration Clause. This is how the present application came to be filed. This application continued to remain pending for no apparent reason. It was taken up for hearing in June 2015. How...
Tag this Judgment!Jagarao Raising Ade and Another Vs. Narayan Harising Pawar and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notices for final disposal, the learned Counsel have been heard at length by making the Rule returnable forthwith. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment dated 15-4-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Lonar in Election Petition No.1/2012 whereby the said election petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been partly allowed and after setting aside the election of the petitioners, fresh elections have been ordered. 3. General elections to elect members of Gram Panchayat Sawargaon were held on 21-10-2012 for Ward No.2. Three members were to be elected. One seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste (women), one seat was reserved for candidates from the Other Backward Class category and the third seat was for Open (women). The results were declared on 22-10-2012. The petitioner No.1 was declared elected from the Other Backward Class category seat while the petitioner No.2 was declared elected on a seat reserved for Scheduled C...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Sanjay Madhukar Mahakalkar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
P. C. 1. By this application, the revision applicant questions legality, propriety and correctness of order passed below Exhibit 28 passed by 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 2013 rejecting application of the applicant under Order VII, rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Respondent Sanjay Madhukarrao Mahakalkar filed suit against applicant (defendant no. 4) and the Union Government, through Chief Controller of Explosives, Mumbai; the Controller of Explosives, Nagpur and the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur for declaration and perpetual injunction. 3. Respondent/plaintiff averred that he is owner of Plots No. 35 and 36 situated in Ward No. 20, Dattatraya Nagar, City Survey Number 874, Khasra No. 48 and 33 under Sakkardara Street Scheme Layout of Nagpur Improvement Trust. Suit plot no. 35 was leased out to plaintiff by the Nagpur Improvement Trust on 12th June 1996 for residential purpose. Plot No. 36 was initially leased out to one ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder and Others Vs. Shamptrao and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 148/2004 (Old No. 117/02), which was pending in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Majalgaon and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 277/1994 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Majalgaon. The suit filed by the present appellants for relief of declaration and temporary injunction is dismissed. Both the sides are heard. 2. The suit was filed in respect of 4 Acre portion (1 Hector 21 R.) out of Survey No. 182 (Gat No. 488) situated at village Talkhed. It is the case of plaintiffs that Mariba, the father of defendant Nos. 1 to 5, was holding the property and it was joint family and ancestral property. It is contended that Mariba was Karta of the joint Hindu family and in that capacity and for legal necessity, Mariba sold the suit property to the plaintiffs. 3. It is the case of plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had filed a collusive suit against the f...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaykumar and Others Vs. The Director of Municipal Administration and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. We have heard Advocate Mrs. R.D. Raskar for petitioner and Mrs. M.N. Hiwse, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Nobody for respondent No.4. 2. Learned A.G.P. also sought adjournment pointing out that no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 till this date. As the request for adjournment was opposed by the petitioner and our attention has been drawn to order passed by this Court earlier, we rejected the request for adjournment. In this situation, without prejudice to said request of adjournment learned A.G.P. has assisted the Court in the matter. 3. Advocate Mrs. R.D. Raskar submits that the petitioner, who expired during the pendency of the matter seeks proper pay scale from 1.1.1986. He was working as City Engineer with respondent No.4 and after wage revision by State Government in relation to its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986 pay scale of Rs.2000“3500 was extended to him from 1.1.1986. However,...
Tag this Judgment!Colonel Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India, (through Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
V. L. Achliya, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal. 2 The Petitioner has challenged the order of transfer and posting dated 26th February 2015 as well as inaction on the part of the respondents in deciding the representation made by the petitioner on 11th of March, 2015 seeking Last Leg Posting. 3 Before adverting to appreciate the submissions advanced, it is necessary to consider few facts leading to filing of this petition: (a) The Petitioner claims to be a permanent commissioned infantry officer serving in the Indian Army since 8th of June 1985. According to the Petitioner, he has rendered 30 years unblemished service. He is due for retirement in the month of July 2017. He was posted in Mumbai since 1st of September 2011 as MCO, C.S.T., Mumbai?. On 1 January 2014 he was hospitalized in INHS Aswini, at Colaba, Mumbai i.e. Respondents' Military Hospital, as he experienced a sudden rise in his blood pressure and gastric ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »