Mumbai Court November 2016 Judgments
Eskays Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Soma Papers and Industries Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, seeking to quash the orders dated 1 April, 2009 and 7 January, 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ( DRAT ) in Appeal No.79 of 2008. By the order dated 1 April, 2009 the DRAT granted a complete waiver of deposit under section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act ). By the order dated 7 January, 2014 the DRAT entertained the appeal filed by the borrower (Respondent No.1 herein) on merits and thereafter set aside the order and judgment dated 26 March, 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai ( DRT ) in Securitization Application No. 17 of 2007....
Tag this Judgment!Kalgonda Balgonda Patil and Others Vs. Sidgonda Subhane Patil (Decease ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2016
1. By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants who were the legal heirs and representatives of the original plaintiffs have impugned the judgment and decree dated 29th July 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gadhinglaj allowing the Regular Civil Appeal No.88 of 1998 filed by the legal heirs and representatives of the original defendants thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 1979 and dismissing the suit filed by the original plaintiff inter alia praying for re-conveyance of the land bearing Survey No.366 of the Gadhinglaj town and for possession. The parties in this judgment are described as per their original status in the suit filed by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Judge. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under:- 2. The suit was filed by Kalgonda Balgonda Patil against the Sidgonda Subhana Patil who...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Livewel Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2016
1. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai in a complaint of unfair legal practice under items 1(a), (b) and 6 of Schedule II and items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 filed by the union of its employees against the Petitioner. By the impugned order, the Industrial court held the complaint to be maintainable. 2. The Petitioner is in the business of provision of various types of services to airline companies within the airport precincts. These services, which are allied to air transportation, include exterior and interior aircraft cleaning, baggage handling, customer care, etc. Respondent No.1, who claims to be a registered trade union of workmen of the Petitioner, filed a complaint of unfair labour practice against the Petitioner before the Industrial Court at Mumbai, claiming inter alia benefits of permanency and wages as permanent employees for sixty workmen of the Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Namdev Sadashiv Adsul (Deceased through his legal heir) and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2016
1. By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original plaintiffs) have impugned the judgment and decree dated 2nd April 2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Satara, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.165 of 2005 filed by the appellants. The appellants had impugned the judgment and decree dated 29th April 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.171 of 1992 filed by the appellants inter-alia praying for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit properties bearing survey no.222 (old), 234 (new), admeasuring 2-H 27-R situated at Wai and the property bearing survey No.254/2-B (old), and the property bearing survey 8/2-B (new), admeasuring 1-H, 44-R situated at Shelarwadi. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under :- 2. The parties in this judgment are described as per their original status in the suit filed by the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!T.A.I.Pharma Ltd. Vs. Wockhardt Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2016
.S. Oka, J. 1. A Notice of Motion was taken out by the appellants-defendants in the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for seeking an order to refer the dispute in the suit to arbitration. By the impugned order, the said Notice of Motion has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. There was a Clearing and Forwarding Agency agreement (for short the said Agreement ) executed by and between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 1st January 2007. In the said agreement, the plaintiffs were described as Sellers and the defendants were described as Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The defendants agreed to act as agents of the plaintiffs' products for the purpose of importing/stocking the products and selling the products as instructed at the risk of the plaintiffs. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that upon the request of the defendants, the plaintiffs supplied and delivered certain pharmaceutical products to the defendants between the period from January 2008 till November 20...
Tag this Judgment!Essar Procurement Services Ltd. Vs. Paramount Constructions
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
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 9th August 2011 made by the arbitral tribunal allowing few claims made by the respondent and directing the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.16,55,733/- with interest @15% p.a. from the date of award till the date of payment to the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this arbitration petition are under:- 2. On 30th April 1998, the petitioner invited tender for erection, testing and commissioning of chemical soar water treatment facility for Issar Oil Limited at Vadinar. The respondent submitted their bid pursuant to the said offer issued by the petitioner on 11th May 1998. The petitioner accepted the final offer made by the respondent and issued a letter of intent on 29th May 1998. The parties, thereafter, entered into a Contract on 29th May 1998 for erection, testing and commissioning o...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks his release on bail pursuant to his arrest on 30th June, 2016 in connection with Crime No. 494 of 2016 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Beed for offences punishable under Sections 326, 326A, 374, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section 3 and 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. 3. As per F.I.R. dated 30th June, 2016, the applicant runs Ashirwad Bhojanalaya in which he had employed one Ganesh aged about 12 years against his wishes. On making necessary enquiry, it was found that Ganesh had been working in the said Bhojanalaya. He was not being paid despite doing work. It was further stated that when he had demanded his money, he had been assaulted and given burns. On that basis, offence came to be registered under the aforesaid Sections. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkisan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by communication dt.31.3.2015 issued by respondent no.4 directing the petitioners to furnish the resolution of Gram Sabha thereby resolving to grant No Objection for renewal of petitioners' licences. The petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the provisions under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Area (Prohibition and Regulation of Licensing) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2015") are not applicable for renewal of the licenses which are in existence prior to the coming into force of the said Rules. 3. All the petitioners are holding country liquor CL-III/FL-II licenses in Ghatanji taluka, District Yavatmal. Undisputedly, the petitioners are running their business in the areas which fall under the Scheduled Areas declared for the State of Maharashtra by the President under Articl...
Tag this Judgment!Amitkumar Nanasaheb Bhosale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. At the outset the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks deletion of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 from the array of the Respondents as they are formal parties. The said Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are accordingly allowed to be deleted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 16/06/2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Rural Development, Government of Maharashtra by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioners came to be dismissed and resultantly the order dated 12/04/2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune came to be confirmed. 4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Writ Petition can in brief be stated thus: The Petitioners herein were the members of the Grampanchayat Rukadi for the term 2008 to 2012. The Respondent No.7 herein is the resident of the said vil...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Sonoma Management Partners Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Bank of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay over to Respondent No.3 or Respondent No.4 the sale proceeds of the property, more particularly described in Exh B to the Petition (for short the said property ) and direct Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue a no claim certificate and or discharge certificate to the Petitioners. The Petitioners have also sought a mandamus directing Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to forbear and refrain from, in any manner, asserting any charge on the property more particularly described in Exh B to the Petition and/or from taking any coercive steps in respect of said property for recovery of any Sales Tax dues of one M/s Weiler International Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (for short the Defau...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »