Mumbai Court January 2016 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.
Raghupati Ramkrishna Bhandari and Another Vs. Ram Daryanani
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. This writ petition challenges the order dated 9/6/2015 passed in Special Civil Suit no.10/2013/A by the Senior Civil Judge, Ponda, thereby rejecting the application of the defendants, who are the petitioners filed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The application was filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the averments made in the plaint, show that the suit was barred by law of limitation. Learned Civil Judge, after hearing both sides, rejected the application holding that the averments in the plaint apparently disclosed that the cause of action had arisen from failure of the petitioners to perform their part of the obligations contained in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 28/4/2009 entered between the petitioners on one hand and the respondent on the other hand and so law of limit...
Antonio Braganza and Another Vs. Antoneto John D'Souza @ Johny D'Souza ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Adhoc Senior Civil Judge at Mapusa thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs for carrying out amendment to the plaint in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the order is arbitrary and perverse as it does not apply the test of due diligence properly to the facts of the present case. He submits that the learned Civil Judge has completely ignored the fact that after the disposal of the suit, there were several other writ petitions between the same parties, one of which also resulted in restoration of the suit with direction of expeditious disposal of the suit to the trial Court which showed that the petitioners were pursuing their case with reasonable care, caution and effort. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is well settled law ...
Mahadev @ Madhav Shablo Solienkar @ Gaude (since deceased through his ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to file the suit in representative capacity. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Civil Judge has completely ignored the well settled principle of law while dealing with the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. He submits that while considering the essential requirement of the provisions of law of community of interest, the Court must satisfy itself that community of interest has been sufficiently shown. He further submits that it is not necessary that the lis in the suit must involve public interest. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the case of The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vs. T.N. Gana...
Mohammed Shabbir Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th May 2009 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, convicting the appellant, who was the accused in Sessions case No.720 of 2008 tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, of offences punishable under Sections 489B of the IPC and 489C of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years, on each of the said two counts. Additionally, he also imposed a sentence of fine with respect to the offence punishable under Section 498B of the IPC. 2. When the appeal came up for final hearing, it was revealed that the appellant was released from prison after having undergone the sentence. Shri Kocharekar, the learned counsel for the appellant, nevertheless, submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits and he would argue the appeal notwithstanding that the appellant has served the entire sentence awarded to him. 3. I have heard ...
Ratan Parbat Ahire Vs. The Chairman, Chinchpada Vibhag Shikshan Prasar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2013 delivered by the School Tribunal, Nashik by which Appeal No.53/2011 filed by the Petitioner has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case, considering lengthy submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides, can be summarized as follows: (a) Respondent No.4 joined Respondent No.1 at Respondent No.2/ School as a Peon in 1991. (b) Respondent No.4 was 12th standard (HSC) passed at the time of his appointment. (c) The Petitioner joined Respondent No.2/ School as a Cook in 2001. (d) The Petitioner was possessing qualifications of HSC, Typing in English and Marathi and MSCIT course. (e) In 2008, the post of a Junior Clerk fell vacant on account of an employee having retired from service. (f) Respondent No.4 was promoted as a Junior Clerk in place of the retired employee in 2009. (g) The approva...
Prabhatkumar S. Das and Others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Na ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-18-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The original petitioner though has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11/6/1998 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in Contempt Petition No.6/1997 and for declaration that respondents are guilty of contempt of Court for disobedience of the order dated 22/1/1997 passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application No.533/1993, in view of subsequent development, i.e. death of original petitioner, the legal heirs of original petitioner, who are brought on record, have restricted their claim in the petition only for direction to respondents to pay retiral benefits to them. 2. The petition arises out of peculiar facts. The petitioner, who was an ex-serviceman, was appointed by the respondents as Apprentice Assistant Wireless Inspector (Class II) vide order dated 11/3/1963. After he was medically found fit, he was posted on 28/3/1963. He continuously served till 14/7/1976 and thereafter, went on medical ...
Nagrik Chetna Manch Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
A.S. Oka, J. THE FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The petitioner which is a public charitable trust has filed the present PIL for challenging the decision of the Pune Municipal Corporation to construct a road through hills which have been successfully afforested by the Social Forestation Department of the State Government. A resolution was passed by the General Body of the second respondent-Pune Municipal Corporation being Resolution No.532 (for short the impugned resolution?) on 27th February 1996 for construction of a 60 feet wide road (for short the proposed road?)through the hills/hills slope from Paud Phata Road upto the gate of Balbharti building complex. It is pointed out in the petition that in the draft revised Development Plan for the city of Pune which was published in the year 1982, the proposed road was shown. However, while sanctioning the draft Development Plan, in exercise of the power under section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 (for short `the MRTP Act'...
Tushar Vishnu Ubale Vs. Archana Tushar Ubale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
1. The order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai, in respect of directing the joint parenting plan by handing over six months custody of the child to each parent is challenged in this appeal. 2. The petitioner/father is a Surgeon and the mother is working as a nurse. They got married on 10.10.2008. It was an intercaste and a love marriage, which was not approved by the parents of the mother. The child Mukta was born on 8.10.2009. 3. Ms.Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Court in its order had directed the parents to submit a joint parenting plan. She argued that the adopting joint parenting plan is a voluntary act of the parents. It cannot be directory. However there was a specific direction given by the Court so a joint parenting plan was submitted by both the parents and therefore the learned Judge ought not to have construed that the submission of such joint parenting plan was a consensual act of the parents. S...
Shobha and Others Vs. Namdeo and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notice for final disposal of the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 2. The petitioners who are the original defendant Nos.2 to 6 are aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit-53 granting leave to the respondent No.1 “ original plaintiff to file subsequent pleadings under provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code.). 3. The facts found relevant for adjudicating the challenge are that the respondent No.1 filed suit for declaration that he had 1/3rd share in the amount of compensation determined and awarded in land acquisition proceedings. It is his case that he, the respondent No.2 and the predecessor of the petitioners were the real brothers and they along with their mother had 1/4th share each in the land which was acquired. According to the respondent No.1, the predecessor of the petitioners had illegally withdrawn the entire amount of compen...
M/s. Aum International Inc., Through its Regional Director for South A ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate has committed serious illegality by not considering the objections taken by the petitioners with regard to admissibility of documents in the nature of electronic or computer record. All these objections related to non-compliance with the mandatory conditions of subsection (2) as well as subsection (4) of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He submits that now it is well settled law as can be seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P. V. Vs. P. K. .Basheer, (2014)10 SCC 473 that Section 65-B conditions being mandatory in nature, must be fulfilled by the party seeking to place reliance upon the documents in the nature of electronic or computer record. The learned Counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate has completely ignored the law s...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »