Mumbai Court January 2016 Judgments
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravikant Padmakar Tarekar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 84 of 1995, the claimant was held entitled to compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its deposit in the Court. The owner of the offending vehicle which is a truck bearing registration No. MIA-9711 and the appellant Insurance Company with which the truck was insured are held jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation. The Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that it was a case of head on collusion between the two vehicles i.e. Bus bearing registration No. MH-20/D-0574 and the truck bearing registration No. MIA-9711. The appellant who is the claimant was driving S.T. Bus and therefore, he was contributory negligent to the extent of 50% in driving the vehicle. According to the learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer, Works Division XVIII (Roads) Vs. Ulhas Gopinat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. The appellants challenges the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, North Goa at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 35/2010 by which the learned Reference Court has allowed the reference of the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, ( the Act for short) and enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs.202/- per square metre. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred as per their original status. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- An area of 140 square metres belonging to the applicant/respondent herein was acquired from survey no. 43/7 situated at Madkai Village in Ponda Taluka for the purpose of construction of a road from main road Madkai, Tonca to Satki Lake in V.P. Madkai in Ponda Taluka. 4. The respondent issued and published notification dated 29.12.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Act and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.8.2006. The award was passed on 31.12.2007 by the Land Acquisitio...
Tag this Judgment!Sangappa V. Tenginakai Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this revision application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa in Criminal Case No.46/P/2009/B thereby dismissing the private complaint filed by the applicant. 3. The applicant, who has submitted his argument in person maintains that the impugned order has been passed without applying mind to the facts available on record and therefore is arbitrary and perverse. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State fairly submits that some aspects of the matter, which are in the nature of allegations made by the applicant regarding his being assaulted, abused filthily and threatened have not been dealt with by the learned Magistrate and therefore, he submits that an appropriate order be passed. 5. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the statements on oath recorded by the learned Magistrate of various witnesses in partic...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Cineyug Worldwide through its Partner Ali Morani Vs. The Union of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (G.S. Patel, J.) 1. Rule. Mr. Mishra for the 2nd Respondent waives service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is called out and taken up for hearing and final disposal. We have heard Ms. Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the 2nd Respondent at some length and considered their rival submissions and the material on record. 2. This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against Final Order No. 24/Final Order/ST/RB/2015 dated 18th February 2015 (Exhibit A , pp. 36-47)passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai under Section 32F(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in a Settlement Application No. 142/ST/JL/2014-SC(MB) SA(ST) 262/2014 dated 29th May 2014. By that order, the Settlement Commission rejected the application in question as impermissible under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( CEA ). 3. The Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaykumar Vs. Counto Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. It is seen from the roznama of the Revisional Court that even though summons issued to the respondent had not been returned, the applicant was directed to take steps to serve the respondent. The roznama of 29.06.2015 discloses clearly that notice issued to the respondent had not been returned. Even, as seen from the roznama of the very date of 29.06.2015 as well as of the date of 15.07.2015, the applicant was directed to take steps. Finally, on 05.08.2015, the revision application was dismissed for non prosecution solely on the ground of failure of the applicant to take steps inspite of final opportunity being granted for taking steps to serve the respondent. The question of taking steps to effect service would arise only when summons is returned unserved. For, in that event, the party would come to know the reason for the return of summons and thus would be in a position to take such st...
Tag this Judgment!Nayan @ Chandrakala Chandrakant Borkar Vs. Gurudas Hari borkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. Heard Shri John Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, waives service. 3. The Appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, FTC-1, South Goa, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal no. 110/2014 by which, the came to be dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The Respondent in the present Appeal filed a suit against the Appellant bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 62/2007/F before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, for eviction of the Appellant from the suit house and for perpetual injunction restraining the Appellant from entering the suit house. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, decreed the suit on 09.05.2014. 5. Being aggrieved with the same, the Appellant filed an Appeal against the Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya V. Dhawale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
P.C. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the Criminal Case No.4700235/SW/2011 under Section 323, 324, 504, 506, 345, r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate's 23rd Court at Esplanade, Mumbai. 2. The respondent no.2 complainant is the Vice President of IDBI Karmachari Sangh, whereas the applicants are the office bearers and members of All India Industrial Development Bank Employees Association. The respondent no.2 had lodged a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate's, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai alleging that on 12.8.2011 the Chief General Manager of IDBI Bank had fixed a meeting on 29.8.2011 on the third floor of IDBI Tower, World Trade Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. The applicant as well as the complainant and the other office bearers were called to attend the said meeting. The respondent no.2 complainant had alleged that while he and the other members were proceeding to the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary of Goa, at Secretariat and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. M. Salkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 27/04/2007, whereby the suit filed by the respondents came to be decreed. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents claim that they owned a property known as "Inamachi Galli" situated at Maulinguem of Cotigao Village of Canacona Taluka which was acquired by the respondents by Deed dated 7/11/1875 executed before the Notary Public which document is marked Exhibit 25. It is further their contention that as per the recital of the said document the property originally was a grant from the Government on payment of foro which was redeemed. The boundaries mentioned in the said Sale Deed are towards the East, West and South by the slope of the hillock and towards the North by the paddy field of the Government. It is further their case that th...
Tag this Judgment!Hirabai and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Ur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1.RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the reservation of the agricultural field of the petitioners bearing No.115/1 (Old) and New Gat No.87/1 of Mouza Digras for D.P. Road and Social Welfare Department has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the petitioners are entitled to use the land for the purpose of development, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the development plan. 3. The aforesaid land of the petitioners was reserved for the D.P. Road and Social Development Department by the final Development plan published on 01.08.1987. Since the land of the petitioners was not acquired for the purpose for which it was reserved for a period of more than ten years from the publication of the final D...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Anant Dalvi and Another Vs. Shivdas Bhartu, (deceased) and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa in Claim Petition no. 25 of 2008 dated 14.05.2009, by which the claim of the claimants, the Respondents herein, for compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been allowed. The Respondents who are the Appellants herein, came in Appeal. 2. The parties are herein referred to as they appear in the cause title of the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: That the claimant no. 1, husband of deceased Ujwala and the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the sons. It is the case of the claimants that on the date of the accident i.e. on 23.02.2007, the deceased Ujwala was riding on her Activa Scooter bearing no. GA-03/D-6553; when she reached near Ankur Hospital, Mapusa, at that time, Respondent no. 1 was driving the Water tanker bearing no. GA-01/Z-0621 in a ra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »