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.
Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate Board and Another Vs. All India C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up forthwith for final hearing. 2. The Petitioners are a minority Sindhi community institution, which runs various colleges, including professional colleges and schools based upon requisite affiliation/ approval, have filed this petition dated 8th May, 2015. Counsel appearing for the parties conceded the position that in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4586 of 2015 (Saraswati Education Society's Saraswati College of Engineering V/s. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Anr) and in Writ Petition No.4620 of 2015 (Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil college of Engineering V/s. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.) this petition must succeed as the issues are identical in present writ petition and, therefore, it can be disposed of for the recorded common facts and the reasons in the said judgments. 3. On 16.11.1981 Petitioner No.2 in...
Brenda Nazareth Menezes and Others Vs. Andre de Menezes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
1. Admit. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally with consent. 2. By this appeal, the appellants (original respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 5) are challenging the order dated 29/07/2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.38/2015/A in Inventory No.57/2015/A. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has directed sealing of the office premises as stated in prayer (I)(b) and had ordered listing of the articles. 3. The brief facts are that the present respondent nos.1 and 2 have initiated Inventory Proceedings of the estate leavers Cosme de Menezes and his wife Maria Renee Menezes. The dispute is between the descendents of Cosme de Menezes from his first marriage on the one side and the descendents born out of second marriage of Cosme de Menezes with the appellant no.1, Brenda Menezes on the other. The case made out before the Trial Court is that the succession of estate of said Cosme, during first marr...
Swati @ Namrata Kishor Gajakas Vs. Kishor Sripati Gajakas and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant is the original complainant. She had filed a complaint against respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, and one Dr.Ashok Mainkar, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 498A IPC, Section 313 IPC, Section 323 IPC, Section 504 IPC and Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The process was, however, issued only against respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, and that too, only with respect to the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saswad, after holding a trial found the respondents not guilty and passed an order of acquittal. The appellant is aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, and has, after obtaining special leave of this court, filed the present appeal challenging the said acquittal. 2. The appeal appeared on board for final hearing on a number of occasions, but the parties and their advocates were absent on all such occasions. Under the circumstances, on 20th July 2015, it was d...
Dharamvir I. Joshi Vs. Jayant R. Patwardhan and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the following orders: (i) Order dated 14 January 2015 in Review Application No. 3 of 2014 in Appeal No. 709 of 2008 made by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court (Appeal Court); (ii) Order dated 23 October 2012 in Appeal No. 709 of 2008 made by the Appeal Court; and (iii) Judgment and decree dated 8 October 2007 made in R.A.D. Suit No. 678 of 2001 by the Small Causes Court (Trial Court). 3. The aforesaid impugned orders have declared the respondent No.1, the plaintiff in R.A.D. Suit No. 678 of 2001 (Patwardhan) to be the tenant in respect of the suit premises and the applicant herein, a rival claimant to the tenancy of the suit premises has been directed by a mandatory injunction to remove his lock upon the suit premises within four months from the date of decree. The permanent injunction as also been grante...
The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has prayed to quash and set aside the Award dt.12.3.2004 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.590 of 1997 against the appellant. 3. The facts, briefly stated are as under: Claimant Shivbodhan Singh is father of motor vehicle accident victim Rajesh while Shilvanti Devi/respondent no.3 is mother of said unfortunate Rajesh. Victim Rajesh was studying in Polytechnic Institute at Nagpur. On 4.7.1997, at about 10.30 a.m. while proceeding on his Hero Moped No.MFW 1763 on the way between Somalwada via Wardha road, Rajesh had halted his moped and was standing on the extreme southern side of the tar road when offending motor vehicle i.e. Tanker bearing registration No.MH-31 M-7740 came from behind and dashed him. In the result, he fell down. The tanker ran over his leg. He sustained severe injuries. He was admitted to Medical Colle...
Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 19th March, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The petitioner was the original claimant whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. 3. On 24th June, 1995 in response to the tender floated by the respondent, the petitioner submitted its quotation to the respondent offering to provide security services at various offices and go-downs of the respondent. On 31st August, 1995 the respondent decided to award the said contract to the petitioner for providing service of receptionists etc. at various offices and go-downs of the respondent. 4. On 14th November, 1995 the parties executed a formal contract recording various terms and conditions for providing services of receptionis...
Balkrishna Jagannath Lad Vs. Indian Postal Department, Through Chief P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents-authorities to treat his land as being free from the reservation following lapsing of the reservation under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as MRTP Act for short). 3. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing survey No. 103/1-2/1D/1A situated at Pandharpur, within the limits of Municipal Council Pandharpur. This property has been reserved with effect from 3.3.1979 under reserved site No. 84 for the purpose of postal department staff quarters. The respondent no. 3 initiated the process of acquisition of the said land on 18.6.1991 and even a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued. However, these proceedings could not be completed within two years and, therefore, the acquisition process resulted in it's lapsing by operation...
Acron Developers Private Limited Vs. Patel Engineering Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act?), the petitioner seeks interim measure i.e. injunction against the respondent from selling, alienating, creating lien, inducting any third party or creating any third party rights in respect of the property of the respondent at Bangalore described in prayer clause (a) of the petition or in the alternate to deposit a sum of Rs.15,45,13,401/- in this Court. Insofar as injunction in respect of the bank guarantees are concerned, the said relief has become infructuous in view of this Court refusing to grant ad-interim injunction by an order dated 28th November, 2013. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. Some time in the year 2010, the respondent awarded a contract to the petitioner for the work of execution of civil, structural, architectural, finishing works for 7 towers for the Proposed Smondoville Residential Apartments? at ...
Shalini Wamanrao Korade Vs. Shankar Ninguja Solanki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
M. S. SONAK, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 28 August 1991 and 31 January 2000 made by the Trial Court and the Appeal Court dismissing Regular Civil Suit No. 820 of 1980 instituted by the petitioners (landlords) for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent (tenant). 2. From the year 1924, the premises ad-measuring 103.05 sq. meters, with open space at the rear side, City Survey No.173 in 'C' Ward, Kolhapur (suit premises) have been let out to the tenant for commercial user. The present landlords, who purchased the suit premises in the year 1971 or thereabouts, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 820 of 1980 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur (Trial Court) seeking recovery of possession on the grounds of non-user, erection of permanent structure without consent and reasonable and bona fide requirement. The suit was dismissed on 28 August 1991 and the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur (Appeal Court) dismissed ...
Pralhad Tukaram Kharatkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.303/2006 thereby convicting the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts which are necessary to decide the present Appeal can briefly be stated as under: The Appellant is the husband of the complainant (P.W.1) Rekha Kharatkar. The Appellant and P.W.1 “ Rekha were residing together along with their two sons viz. Pritesh aged 11 years and Yatish aged about 9 years. Pritesh was studying in 6th standard and Yatish was studying in 4th standard in Tilak Education Society, Vashi. The Appellant was a tempo driver. That one Janardan Patil from village Nelje was friend of the Appellant and he used to visit his house...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »