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.
Shankarlal Ramsay Sharma (Marwadi) and Others Vs. Sushilabai Govindlal ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. The revision is filed to challenge the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.133/2003 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dondaicha, District Dhule and also the judgment and decree of Civil Appeal No.137/2008 which was pending in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Dhule. The decree of recovery of possession of property used for commercial purpose is given by the trial Court on the ground of non-user which falls under section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The District Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. Both the sides are heard. 2. The property involved is Survey Nos.3616 and 3814 on which there is some construction and there is some open space. This property is given number in municipal record and it is situated at Dondaicha-Warwade, Tahsil Shindkheda, District Dhule. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that suit property was given to the defendants for running business of Dal-Mill. It is contended t...
Mirza Ismail Baig Vs. Mohammad Muniroddin and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. The revision is filed against judgment and order of Rent Controller, Jalna delivered in file No.95/RC/CR-9 and judgment and order of Rent Appeal No.2 of 2010 which was pending in the Court of Principal District Judge, Jalna. In a proceeding filed for eviction under section 15 of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the relief of eviction is given by the Rent Controller on two grounds, like willful default and personal bonafide requirement of the suit premises. The decision is confirmed by the Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2. The suit property is part of Municipal House No.4252 situated on College Road, Sadar Bazar, Jalna. It was given on monthly rent to the tenant on 1st March, 1992 for doing hotel business and written agreement was prepared accordingly (dated 16th February, 1993). It is contended that there was an agreement to pay Rs.1,000/- per month after the expiry of English Calendar month and the tenant...
Dr. Shantaram M. Lawande and Others Vs. The Mormugao Municipal Council ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S.D. Padiyar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 and Ms. P. Bhandari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.2 to 4. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition filed by the petitioners, inter alia, seeks for the following reliefs: (a) For a writ of mandamus, or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any order or direction commanding the Respondents to act and to ensure that no stalls are allotted or allowed to be erected on the footpaths and the streets in Vasco da Gama city during the forthcoming Saptah festival so as to block the free movement of the pedestrians and continuous flow of smooth traffic. b) For a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any order...
KPL International Limited Vs. API Industries Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
Oral Judgment: (Mohit S. Shah, CJ.): 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18 June 2015 of the learned Single Judge declining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent for institution of the Summary Suit proposed to be filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the respondent-defendant. 2. The respondent-defendant is a limited company with its registered office at Bhavnagar in Gujarat. The defendant, however, has its regional office in Mumbai within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned trial Judge took the view that since the registered office of the defendant, which is its principal place of business is in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, the defendant cannot be taken to be carrying on its business in Mumbai, even if its regional office was situated at Mumbai. Of course, its subordinate regional office in Mumbai may give this Court territorial jurisdiction, but only in respect of any cause of action or a part thereof which has arisen in Mumbai. For taki...
Lata Ramesh More Vs. Ramesh Dinkar More and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
P.C. 1. All these matters are taken together for decision on the legal point to the following effect : Whether under section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure an application for leave to file appeal can be entertained challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court.? 2. During the hearing on some of the above applications for leave to file appeal it was argued by various respective Counsels for the applicants that the application for leave to file appeal can be entertained under Sub-section 4 of Section 378 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order of acquittal passed by an Appellate Court. Initially considering the plain reading of sub-section 4 of Section 378 of Cr.P.C., it was thought fit by this Court to firstly decide this legal issue in view of there being no decision of a Division Bench or a larger Bench of this Court on this legal point. It was also thought fit to appoint a learned Senior Counsel as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Accordingly learned Senior Couns...
The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Panchfulabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
1. Heard Mr.D.N.Kukday, learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The appellant, by this appeal, questions validity and legality of the Judgment and Award dt.31.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.588 of 1999 whereby compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs.6,99,542/- inclusive of compensation for no fault liability along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition and further direction was given that, in the event compensation is not deposited within 45 days from the date of order, interest would be chargeable @ 12 % p.a. from the date of petition till the amount if fully satisfied. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned Award enhancing rate of interest by way of penalty is unsustainable in law and ought to be quashed and set aside. 3. The brief facts are as under: One Vishnu Bhagwat working as a Pump Khalasi with W.C.L. at Patansawangi Mines had come to Nagpur on 29....
Bhupesh Rathod Vs. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant is the original complainant. He had filed a complaint against respondent no.1 herein, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act hereinafter). After holding a trial, the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, found respondent no.1 not guilty and passed an order of acquittal. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has, after obtaining special leave of this court, filed the present appeal praying that the order of acquittal be set aside and respondent no.1 be convicted. 2. I have heard Mrs.Kavita Pawar, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mr.Amar Bhatt, the learned counsel for respondent no.1. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant' and respondent no.1 as 'the accused.' 4. The accused had issued eight cheques in favour of M/s.Bell Marshall Tele System Limited. These cheques, though were drawn on different ...
Sunil Mahadev Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
P.C.: 1. This Application is moved for regular bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C., as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 376, 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The age of prosecutrix is 15 years old. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant, father of prosecutrix gave information to the police that his daughter, who was studying in 9th Std., informed him on 25th November that she is going to meet her teacher but she did not return home. So, he searched for her in the village, but she could not be found. Hence, he gave missing complaint to the police on 27th November, 2014. Accordingly, missing report was registered at 23/2014. On the same day, he informed the police that after enquiry, applicant/accused was not found in the village since 25th November, 2014. So, the offence was registered under sections 363 and 366A against the applicant...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Surendra Ramchandra Mestri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the State challenging acquittal of the Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, vide his Judgment and Order dated 18th May, 1994 in Sessions Case No.32 of 1993. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal are stated as follows:- PW-5 Balkrishna is the father of deceased Dilip. As Dilip has misbehaved with Sarita, the daughter of one Eknath Mestri, the Respondent, who belongs to Mestri family, was annoyed with Dilip. Hence, as per prosecution case, on 9th March, 1993, at about 9:15 pm, while Dilip was attending to his pet dogs in the court-yard of his house, Respondent assaulted him with knife. In the said assault, he inflicted about four stab blows on the vital part of the body of Dilip. When Dilip shouted for help, his father PW-5 Balkrishna, who was sitting in the ota (varandah) of his house, and his grand-mother PW-6 Kashibai, who was in the kitchen o...
Welspun Enterprises Limited Vs. ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks an injunction against the respondent no.3 from making payment of the amount of Rs.18,66,66,667/- or any other amount in relation to the project on account of cancellation of the concession agreement to the respondent no.1 or any other person, except as and by way of refund to respondent no.2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. On 14th December, 2009 the Department of Commerce and Transport, Government of Odisha, invited proposals for the development of modern Baramunda Bus Terminal alongwith commercial facility at various locations including in Odisha including Bhubaneshwar on public private partnership mode i.e. on BOT basis. 3. Respondent no.1 submitted a bid on 26th July, 2010 of Rs.56 crores towards concession fee as premium for the development of the project and was selected as a preferred bidder in the development of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »