Mumbai Court September 2015 Judgments
Gangesh Dnyanoba Dagade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
Oral Judgment: [Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Acting C.J.] 1.The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18th September 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.483 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case can briefly be stated as under: Deceased Chhababai was the wife of the appellant. At the time of incident, the appellant and deceased had one son i.e. PW-2 Akshay who was about nine years of age at that time. The appellant was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor he used to abuse and beat his wife Chhababai. The incident took place on 6.4.2006. At about 6.00 p.m. Chhababai returned home and started cooking. Thereafter the appellant came home. He was intoxicated. The appellant demanded money from his wif...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpur Mahanagar Palika Samanvaya Chikitsak Sangh, through its General ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The Industrial Court has dismissed the Complaint (ULP) Nos. 590 and 591 of 1987 by its common judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2009. The claim in the complaints was for direction to the employer to implement the agreement reached by resolution dated 07.11.1974 in the matter of pay-scale and to pay the members of the complaint Union salary in the scale of Rs.680-1500/- equivalent to the salary payable to the Medical Officers working under the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that the members of the complainant Union are the Ayurvedic Doctors claiming parity in the scale of pay with M.B.B.S Medical Officers. The Industrial Court has held that the members of the complainant Union cannot be called as "employees' within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (in short "B.I.R. Act"). 2. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court can be invoked by the "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of...
Tag this Judgment!Franco B. Martins Vs. Archana Pai Kudchadkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
1. Heard Shri Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior counsel with Mr. L. Raghunandan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Menino Teles, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. The petitioner is the original complainant, filed complaint against the respondent no.1-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margaon Goa bearing Criminal Case No. 132/2013. 3. On 28.3.2013 the respondent no.1 issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner in lieu of the legal enforceable debt for an amount of Rs. Fifteen lakhs. The petitioner deposited the said cheque drawn on ICIC Bank for clearance through the Petitioner's bank i.e. Corporation Bank. 4. On 30th April, 2013 the bank of the respondent no.1 i.e. ICICI bank intimated the Corporation Bank that the said cheque has been returned unpaid with the remark payment stopped by drawer?. 5. On 10.5.2013 th...
Tag this Judgment!Ashokkumar Daulatsingh Madan Since deceased through legal heirs and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
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 13/06/2013 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik by which order the Application (Exhibit 117) filed by the Petitioners came to be rejected. 3. The facts giving rise to the above Petition can in brief be stated thus: The suit in question being Special Civil Suit No.347 of 1991 has been filed by the Respondent No.1 “ original Plaintiff for specific performance of the contract/agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1. The subject matter of the said contract/agreement is the land bearing Survey No.704, Hissa No.1+2/8 (old Survey No.704/2B/1/4/4 admeasuring 20 Ares situated at Nashik. The Plaintiff in the said suit has alternatively prayed for damages to the tune of Rs.15,25,000/- with 2% interest from the date of filing of the suit till its ...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala and Others Vs. Chandrakant and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
1. The instant appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in RCS No. 120 of 2000, which was pending in the Court of Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ambajogai and also against the judgment and order in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2014, which was pending in the Court of District Judge - 3, Ambajogai. 2. Heard learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 3. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 - Chandrakant for relief of specific performance of contract of sale of agricultural land against the appellants, which was in respect of portion of three acres land out of survey No. 290, situated at village Chanai. The defendant-Yashwant, who was alive on the date of the suit, was a brother of father of the plaintiff. 4. It is case of the plaintiff that, the defendant, under agreement dt. 26th February, 1997, had agreed to sale the suit property to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. It is contended that, on the date of the agreement, the amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ismail Musabhai Memon Vs. Abdul Aziz Anvar Inamdar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar and also against the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.13 of 2007 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge-1 Nandurbar. Relief of injunction is granted against the appellant to prevent the nuisance by the trial Court and the decision is confirmed by the first appellate Court. Both sides are heard. 2. The plaintiff and the co-sharer are owners of property bearing CTS No.2407/1-A situated at Nandurbar. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant is in possession of property bearing CTS No.2407/1-B situated adjacent to the property of the plaintiff and the defendant is illegally running a saw mill on property CTS No. 2407/1-B. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is not having necessary licence to run the saw mill. It is contended that due to machinery of saw mill there is nois...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Com ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 22/03/2013 delivered by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.16/2008. 3. It is pointed out by the petitioner that out of 4 charges leveled upon the respondent vide charge sheet dated 31/07/2006, only 1 charge has been proved under Rule 86(3), clause 4 of Schedule K. 4. The punishment proposed against the petitioner vide order dated 27/02/2007 was that the loss of Rs.4,000/- caused to the petitioner be deducted from the salary of the respondent and the punishment of stoppage of one increment for 1 year and the period of suspension to be considered as a part of the punishment. 5. The respondent put forth his reply on 23/03/2007 and stated that none of the charges are proved against him and he deserves to be exonerated. However, by order dated 26/05/2006, the petitioner imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual increment for one year agains...
Tag this Judgment!ITC Limited Vs. NTC Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
1. First, mea culpa: I heard Counsel on both sides at some length almost a year ago. I reserved judgment. Other matters intervened since, and I somehow lost sight of this case. That is no excuse, nor do I seek to make it one. I can only request parties and their advocates to forgive me this lapse. A. BACKGROUND 2. The suit is an action in trade mark and copyright infringement combined with a cause of action in passing off. The Plaintiff (ITC?) took an ex parte ad-interim order on 7th May 2014. That order included reliefs in passing off. ITC filed an application for leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent only thereafter. This was opposed. For reasons not immediately germane, the ad-interim order was, by consent, vacated on 17th July 2014. The present application is therefore limited to the cause of action in infringement of both trade mark and copyright. 3. ITC claims copyright in an artistic work being a label GOLD FLAKE KINGS RED?, a reproduction of which is provided (Plaint, Ex...
Tag this Judgment!VKE Plumbing Private Limited Vs. Blue Ridge hotels Private Limited and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
Oral Judgment: (V. M. Kanade, J.) 1. By consent the appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent. 3. Respondent No.1 has invited tenders for plumbing and fire fighting works for their proposed hotel project in Andheri (E), Mumbai. 4. The tender given by the appellant was accepted and two letters regarding award of contract were issued on 3.1.2014. The appellant also executed two bank guarantees; one in respect of mobilisation bank guarantee and second in respect of performance of works. 5. There was a dispute between the parties and on 26th May 2015, contract was terminated by respondent No.1 and thereafter the bank guarantee was invoked sometime on 10th September, 2015. Being aggrieved by the said invocation of bank guarantee which was invoked by a written notice to the bank, the appellant filed Arbitration Petition in this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6. It is contended firstly tha...
Tag this Judgment!Nagu Naik and Others Vs. Swapnesh Prabhu and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao in Claim Petition No.167 of 2008 dated 29th April, 2010, by which the claim of the claimants is dismissed. Therefore, the claimants have preferred this present appeal. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The claimants have filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of son of the claimant nos. 1 and 2 and brother of the claimant no.3 namely Prasad Nagu Naik, due to motor vehicle accident, which took place on 18.5.2008 at about 18.30 hours near railway over bridge, Curchorem, Goa. 4. The Brief facts can be stated as follows:- The deceased Prasad Nagu Naik was the Conductor on the Mini-bus bearing no. GA-02-T-4339, which was proceeding from Curchorem bus stand to Usgaon-Ponda via Dabal. When the bus reached at the spot of accident, it turned turtled on its cleaner side/left side on the up...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »