Mumbai Court September 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.
Radhabai Vithal Pagui and Others Vs. Dr. Sulabha P. Keny and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Iftikhar Agha, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 30.7.2010 under the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether Pw1 having deposed as the attorney of the Respondent, on the cause of action, which was prior to the execution of Power of Attorney dated 20.02.2003 and the said witness deposing only as attorney, his evidence was impermissible in law as per the authority of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. (AIR 2005 SC 439)? (b) Whether in view of fact that Dw4, one of the co-owners having himself deposed that he did give consent himself, non proving of his written consent was not at all detrimental? 3. With regard to the first substantial question of law it is not disputed that PW1 who has deposed on behalf of the principal is the person whose father's house is located adjoining the s...
Amarbin Salam Chaus Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present appeal, the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed upon him is questioned by the appellant. The appellant is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on 25.04.2014 for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and for that he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 days. The appellant was further found to be guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and on that count, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts, which are necessary for the decision of the appeal are incorporated hereinbelow. Wahida w/o Abraham Chaus (PW1) is the victim. She is wife of the appellant. Their marriage took place on 25.05.2000. At the relevant time, the couple was residing at Sonapur. T...
Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. and Others Vs. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. By these two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners have impugned the arbitral awards dated 27th September 2014 and 17th December 2012 respectively in Arbitration No.088 of 2012 in Arbitration Petition No.690 of 2015, and the partial final award on jurisdiction dated 15th March 2013, partial final award on liability and reliefs (excluding costs) dated 3rd November 2013 read with final award on costs dated 2nd September 2014 passed by the arbitral tribunal in Arbitration No.089 of 2012 in Arbitration Petition No.757 of 2015 allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. 2. The respondent has raised an issue of maintainability of these two petitions on the ground that the parties had agreed that save for Section 9, Part I of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the provisions of Part I of the Arbitration Act shall not apply to the terms of the Share Subscription Agreement and on other grounds. 3. In view of th...
Quiteria Fernandes and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Collector and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. Heard. Admit. Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate waives service for the respondents. 2. By this appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs are challenging the order dated 5/9/2014 (below application Exhibit 13) passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Civil Suit No.7/2014. By the impugned order the application (Exhibit 13) filed by the respondents under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed thereby rejecting the plaint as being barred by limitation as also the under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, (The Act of 1894, for short). 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus:- That the appellants filed Civil suit no.7/2014 against the respondents for declaration that the suit property, namely, land admeasuring 2600 square metres bearing Chalta No.32 P.T Sheet No.65 of Margao city is not acquired and that the purported acquisition and taking over possession of the suit property is fra...
The Grampanchayat, Nadiwadi Tq.Nilanga, Dist.Latur, Through its Sarpan ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally. 2. All the petitioners in these petitions are the Gram Panchayats, who are represented by their Sarpanch / Member. These petitioners have put forth their grievance on behalf of the elected members of the gram panchayats. 3. The respondents in each of these petitions are Statutory Authorities. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Aurad, (Shahajani) is respondent No.5, who has not caused an appearance despite service. 4. Since an identical issue is involved in all these cases, this Court (Coram : Sunil P.Deshmukh, J.) had considered these petitions and had passed a common interim order dated 04/08/2015. It is in these circumstances that all these petitions have been heard finally together by the consent of the parties. 5. The undisputed facts in these cases are as under: [a] Respondent No.5 APMC is situated at Aurad Shahajani and all the petitioners gram panchayats fall within the jurisdiction ...
Dr. Ajit Vishwanath Borade Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, the original accused no.1, has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 16th January 2009 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nashik in Sessions Case No.205 of 2007 thereby convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. By the impugned judgment and order dated 16th January 2009, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit the appellant under Sections 498(A), 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The original accused no.2 Smt. Sangita P. Suryavanshi has been acquitted from all the charges framed against her. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record and are necessary to decide the present appeal can briefly be stated thus: (i) The deceased Smt. Usha alias Vrushali was the wife of the appellant. The d...
Tardeo Properties Private Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This matter was heard earlier and we had placed it today for dictating judgment. 2. After having heard both sides, we proceed to grant Rule on this Writ Petition. The Respondents waive service. By consent of both sides, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek a direction to the 2nd Respondent to forthwith comply with the requisition contained in this Court's letters dated 23rd October, 2013 and 4th August, 2015 and admit a consent decree for registration, register the same as a conveyance of immovable property by completing all the formalities in that regard within the time prescribed by this Court. The Petition has been presented on 24th August, 2015 and in other words seeks a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction in the above mentioned nature. 4. Together with the Writ Petition, we have, on Board Chamber Summons No.283 of 2015 whi...
Krishna Murari Goenka and Another Vs. Schreiber Dynamix Dairies Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. The Company Appeal impugns an order passed by the CLB refusing to grant any interim relief by way of stay of the Agenda of a proposed General Body Meeting of the 1st Respondent Company concerning increase of authorised share capital and also stay of the minutes of the Board Meeting of the 1st Respondent Company held on 16 July 2015. 2. The case of the Appellants, who were the Original Petitioners in a Company Petition alleging oppression on the part of Respondent No.2, in the petition was briefly this : The 1st Respondent Company was set up in the year 1992 with 80% shareholding of the Appellant Group (known as the G Promoters' Group) and whilst around 20% of shareholding belong to the 2nd Respondent Company (known as the Schreiber shareholders). This Company was in BIFR in or about 2002 purportedly as a Sick Industrial Company. At that stage, at the request of G Promoters' Group, the Schreiber shareholders bailed out the 1st Respondent Company by investing around Rs.34 crores as eq...
Bhausaheb Balkrishna Ghare Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar (Respondent No.2 herein) and the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik (Respondent No.3 herein) by which Appeal No.22/2014 filed by the Petitioner has been rejected. 3. The contentions of the Petitioner can be summarized as follows: (a) The Petitioner was appointed as a Gram-Sevak in Panchayat Samiti, Ahmednagar on 01.07.1991. (b) In 1993, he was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Sangamner. (c) On 31.05.2011, he was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Akole. (d) The charges with reference to which the Petitioner has been held guilty and punished, pertain to his tenure as GramSevak in Chincholi Gurav Gram Panchayat in taluka Sangamner. (e) He had worked as Gram-Sevak in the year 2006-2007 in Pimpalgaon Deva Gram Panchayat....
Sunil Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Exception is taken to the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 130 of 2012 Dt.29-4-2014 by which the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304I of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Factual Matrix : 2. Bharat Ninaji Thakare (P.W.6) was attached to police station, Rajura. On 29/7/2012 he was present in the police station. That day Sangeeta Durge (P.W.1) came to police station and lodged her oral report. The report was reduced into writing. It is at Exh.12. The report was disclosing commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, a crime was registered by Bharat Thakare vide Crime No. 126 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant. Printed F.I.R. is at Exh.13. Sangeeta Durge (P.W.1) is the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »