Mumbai Court October 2016 Judgments
Country Club (India) Ltd. Vs. Choudhury and Choudhury (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 8th August 2012 made by the learned arbitrator thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. The petitioner herein was the original respondent whereas the respondent herein was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this arbitration petition are as under:- 2. Sometime in the year 2007, the petitioner through their Architects, G.D.Sambhare and Co. invited tenders for the work of construction of Club House, Swimming Pools, Health Spa, Guest Rooms, Mediation Centers and Convention Halls on Gat No.496 at Village-Bhuvan, Off Kolad, Taluka Mangaon, District Raigad. On 24th September 2007, the respondent submitted their bid for the said work and thereafter, revised and re-submitted the bid for an aggregate tendered amount of Rs.14,64,49,410/-. The...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Prasad @ Pappuji Singh Chand Sigh and Another Vs. Prem Mehan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
1. Being aggrieved by both the orders dated 25th August, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge 3, Nashik allowing the application (Ex.5) filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) in Suit No. 1 of 2015 and Suit No. 2 of 2015 inter alia praying for injunction against the appellant, his directors, partners, officers, servants, agents and representatives restraining from using the marks, trade marks or labels that are similar or identical to that of registered trade mark and copyright of the respondent in any manner during the pendency of the suit and for other reliefs, the appellant (original defendant) has preferred these two separate appeals. The parties in this order are described as per their status before the learned trial judge. By consent of parties, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by a common order. The parties have agreed that reasons as may be recorded by this court in Appeal from Order No.393 of 2016 shall also be applied to Appeal from Or...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar @ Murlya Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2015 in Sessions Case No. 173/2014 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule whereby the appellant held guilty of offence u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. In brief, the facts leading to filing of appeal are summarized as under: (a) On 13.07.2014, Ratilal Gangaram Pawara (PW3) resident of Bhoiti, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule lodged complaint with Police Station Shirpur alleging therein that on 11.7.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., while his father Gangaram Pawara was weaving rope of cot in the courtyard of their house and his mother Sahabai, brother Shantaram (PW4) and Tukaram were helping him in weaving of rope of cot, at that time the accused came there in a drunken condition and demanded money to his father for consuming liquor. His father refused to pay money and asked him to go away. The accused insisted to pay money and sai...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Amlin Underwriting Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
P.C.:- 1. This Chamber summons has been taken out by the plaintiffs to add the respondent Aon UK Limited, as defendant no.12. 2. The plaintiffs have filed this Suit seeking specific performance of two contracts dated 20.11.2009 between the plaintiff no.1 and defendant nos.1 to 8. Defendant no.9 is impleaded in its capacity as the insurance broker. Defendant nos.10 and 11 are impleaded as associated entities of defendant no.9 on the basis that they were also involved in the placing of the reinsurance contract by defendant no.9 and for reasons set out in the plaint owed duties to the plaintiffs as defendant no.9 did. Defendant no.10 is a company incorporated in United Kingdom and defendant no.11 is a Hong Kong based company. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that at the relevant time the plaintiffs dealt with an entity called Aon Limited incorporated in the United Kingdom. It is stated in the affidavit in support that sometime in March-April 2012 Aon Limited and/or its business and/or ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Sobha Amarsingh Ra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
i. What could be the just and reasonable amount of compensation which the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short called as, M.V. Act ) can award? ii. Which are the relevant parameters to be considered by the Claims Tribunal in that regard? iii. In case of death of an unmarried person, whether multiplier to be applied is to be based on the age of the deceased or age of the claimants? iv. Whether the future prospects of the income of the deceased need to be considered in arriving at the pecuniary loss of the dependents, and if yes, how to assess the same? 1. These are some of the pertinent questions, that are raised for consideration, in these three appeals. 2. In view of some of the conflicting decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, on these issues, learned counsels for the respective parties have advanced elaborate submissions to assist this Court to come to its just decision and to resolve the issue to some extent. 3. As t...
Tag this Judgment!Shaista Shabbir Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Application takes exception to the First Information Report bearing Crime No.174/2016 registered with Beed City Police Station, Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ). 3. The applicant is arrayed as accused no.5 in the First Information Report bearing Crime No.174/2016 (for short FIR ) registered with Beed City Police Station. In the said FIR, respondent no.2 i.e. informant, alleged against the applicant that in the month of December, 2015, when the informant was present in the Hospital of her husband viz. Javed Shaikh, the present applicant came to meet him and said that, she has taken divorce from her husband, and the husband of the informant should also take divorce from her, and thereafter, the applicant and husband of the informant can perform the marriage. When the in...
Tag this Judgment!Sneh Kohli Vs. The Universal English Trust, through the Managing Trust ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order and judgment dated 28th August, 1997 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had obtained degree of B.A. from Pune University, M.A. from Bombay University and B.Ed. from Anna Malai University and was appointed as an assistant teacher against clear vacancy in respondent no.2 school w.e.f. June 1990. The petitioner belongs to the open category. The petitioner was continued in the next academic year in the same post in the respondent no.2 school. 3. On 23rd March, 1992 the petitioner was issued a letter terminating her services w.e.f. the end of the academic ye...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhee Gupta Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 18/01/2016 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Superintendent Engineer, Mumbai Regional Electric Inspection Committee, Industry, Energy and Labour Department, Mumbai by which order, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 came to be rejected for the reasons mentioned therein. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of the above Petition can in a nutshell be stated thus: The Petitioner herein is the owner of Flat bearing Nos.605/606 situated at Kingston Towers, G.D.Ambedkar Marg, Kalachowki, Parel, Mumbai 400 033. The Petitioner had entered into a Leave and License Agreement with one M/s. Laurent and Benon Management Consultants Ltd. It seems that the said Company defaulted in making payment of the license fees, on account which the license came to be terminated by the Petitioner and the Petitioner ther...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. All these four petitions challenge the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra/respondent no.1 herein dated 12th November, 2014 under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) thereby sanctioning modifications with certain conditions in the Development Plan for the City of Nagpur and for that purpose, amending notification dated 4th November, 2008. 2. The facts and the grounds raised in all these petitions are almost identical with one additional factual challenge insofar as Writ Petition No.5056 of 2016 is concerned. As such, all these four petitions are heard together and decided by this common Judgment and Order. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petitions are as under: In the year 2000-2001, the Planning Authority for the City of Nagpur had proposed to increase width of one road known as Kelibag Road from 15 meters to 24 meters. In the D...
Tag this Judgment!Fortis Hospitals Limited and Others Vs. Antonieta Ribeiro e Souza and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
1. Admit. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.3 waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25/3/2015 passed by the learned District Judge at Panaji in Civil Suit No.38/B, by which the learned District Judge has refused to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition can be stated thus: The respondent nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs, who have filed the aforesaid civil suit for recovery of money and compensation against the petitioners (original defendant nos. 1 to 4) and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 (defendant nos. 5 and 6). The case made out in the plaint is that the respondent no.1 was suffering from Degenerative Aortic Valve Disease and had consulted the petitioner no.2 Dr. Vivek Jawali, Director and Surgeon attached to Fort...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »