Mumbai Court February 2016 Judgments
Sachinsingh Baldeosingh Chauhan Vs. Rajeshwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Patre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Chandekar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Warora thereby allowing the application partly seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 4. Few facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follow: The petitioner and the respondent are well qualified persons. The petitioner at his credit is having academic qualification of B.E. whereas the respondent, a more qualified lady than the petitioner, is having at her credit the academic qualification of B.E. and M.Tech. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 10-11-2008. It seems that within short span of matrimonial life, the petitioner and the respondent could not go along with each other and the parties were not keeping the matrimonial tie peacefully. It further revea...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Sunil Ingole Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is taking an exception to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.4, Baramati, of committing R.C.C. No.247 of 2011 to the Court of Sessions, which was filed on his complaint and the offences of which were not triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, which order was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2014. 3. Brief facts of the Writ Petition are to the effect that, on the complaint of Respondent No.2 herein, C.R. No.213 of 2010 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. Whereas, on the complaint of one Mayur Jagannath Deshkhaire, another C.R. No.214 of 2010 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 325, 143, 145 and 149 of IPC r/w. Section 3(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Balu @ Balasaheb and Another Vs. Uttam and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
1. The appeal is admitted. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard both sides for final disposal. 2. The appeal is filed by original claimants of Claim Petition No.92/2011 which was pending before Claims Tribunal, Beed. The claimants are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and so they have challenged the decision. 3. Deceased Ranjana was wife of claimant no.1 and mother of claimant no.2. The age of the deceased was 28 years as per the case of claimants. The age of claimant no.1 was 30 years and age of claimant no.2 was 3 years at the relevant time. It is the case of the claimants that deceased was working in field and she was making income of Rs.4500/- p.m. Under the head of loss of dependency and other heads, compensation was claimed. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,41,500/- on fault liability. 4. The tribunal has presumed notional income as Rs.3000/- p.m. and the compensation is calculated. The amount like Rs.5000/- is given under t...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Vs. Harishankar Ramnivas Sharma and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Heard finally in view of notice for final disposal issued on 23/09/2014. 2. By this civil revision application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the applicant, who is the original defendant No.1 in S.C.S. No.5055/2012 has challenged the order dated 30/06/2014 passed on the application below Exhibit- 33 filed under provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code for rejection of the plaint. Similarly, the order dated 15/09/2014 rejecting the review application below Exhibit-49 filed by the applicant is also under challenge. 3. Few facts which are relevant to consider the challenge as raised in the revision application are that, initially the non-applicant No.1 had filed S.C.S. No.581/2006 against the present applicant and three others. It was the case of the non-applicant No.1 that he was the lawful owner of land bearing Kh. No.46 and part of land bearing Kh. No.47, admeasuring 1.75 acres. It was the further ca...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. G.E. Money Financial Services Ltd. Vs. K.C. Sheth and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
P.C. : 1. These two Notices of Motion have been taken out by the respective Applicants for setting aside a final Judgment and decree dated 9th December 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in the present Suit. The Motions contain more or less identical facts. Notice of Motion No. 641 of 2014 is treated as a representative case for considering the Motions. 2. The present Suit is filed by the Plaintiff as a Suit on mortgage seeking a decree of Rs. 1,29,64,666/- together with interest and for sale of the mortgaged property and application of the sale proceeds towards the Plaintiff's decretal dues. The mortgage property consists of a flat, namely, Flat No. 15 in the building known as 'Sun Flower', Cuffe Parade, Mumbai together with the shares relating to the said flat in Cuffe Parade Ravi Kiran Cooperative Housing Society. The Plaintiff was put in possession and occupation of the suit flat by Defendants No. 2 and 3 under a leave and licence agreement for 36 months on payment of licence fe...
Tag this Judgment!Magnum Landcon LLP and Others Vs. Dharamdas Nandlal Mehta and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
P.C.: 1. The appellants have approached this court impugning an order dated 18.8.2015 passed by the Company Law Board in a Company Application, taken out on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 for leave to amend the company petition so as to bringing on record the appellants as party-respondents to the Company petition. The respondent nos.1 and 2 had prayed, pending the amendment and pending hearing and final disposal of the said company application, to restrain the appellants in whatsoever manner acting upon in furtherance of a purported development agreement and power of attorney or carrying out any construction or creating 3rd party rights etc. relating to the property which for ease of reference, we shall call Swami Samarth Nagar. The Company Law Board has, pending the disposal of the said company application, where the main relief sought is to implead the appellants as party respondents, restrained the appellants from alienating or creating 3rd party rights over the Swami Samarth Nag...
Tag this Judgment!Maratwada Wakf Board through Mohammad Vs. Vibhawari and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) takes exception to the judgment dated 16.09.1994 passed by the first appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 2. Facts found relevant for deciding the second appeal are that according to the appellant there was a Dargah and graveyard admeasuring about 350 ft. X 250 ft. in Survey No. 153 at Rajura Tahsil, District Chandrapur. The said Dargah and graveyard was shown as Wakf property in the development plan of Rajura town in 1972. In the Government Gazette dated 06.03.1975 it was shown at Sr. No. 49. According to the appellant the defendant no.1-Deepak Deshpande had encroached an area admeasuring 160 ft. X 170 ft. of said property in the month of May 1974. The defendant no.1 had also sold the portion admeasuring 95 ft. X 80 ft. to the defendant no.2 on 29.06.1976. In this background the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Vishwamitra Bhatia Vs. Pushkar Tarachand Meshram and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
P.C. 1. The petitioner is the original complainant in C.R. No.7 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 109 of Indian Penal Code. Respondents no.1 to 3 are accused nos.1 to 3 in the FIR and respondent no.4 is the Investigating agency. Respondent no.1, Meshram is working as the Sub-Engineer and respondent no.2, Rajput is working as Assistant Engineer with Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Respondent no.3 is the Driver of the vehicle in which Meshram and Rajput were travelling at the relevant time. The arrest of the three took place on 5th February, 2016 at 4.20 p.m. and the articles recovered at that time were, (i) Wagon-R motorcar bearing registration no.MH-04-EF-0393, (ii) four handsets of mobile, iii) a samsung tablet, iv) the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- coated with anthricin powder, v) amount of Rs.11,15,000/-, vi) a diary along with certain loose sheets and vii) 19 notices addressed to different pe...
Tag this Judgment!HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax -2(3), Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
Per Court 1. Heard. Rule. Respondents wave service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 23rd September, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2015, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal relating to the Assessment Year 2008-09 on the issue of applicability of Section 14A of the Act to disallow a portion of the interest paid on borrowed funds in respect of investments made in tax free securities. This when it has own funds in excess of investments made in the securities and further these securities are held as stock in trade. This dismissal of the appeal, submit the petitioner, inspite of the issue being concluded on both the grounds in its favour by the binding decisions of this Court. 3. However, Mr. Suresh Kumar the learned Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Columbia Petro Chem Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Coastline Shipping (India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
P.C. 1. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in Criminal Case no.4457/SS/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act filed by respondent no.1. By the order dtd. 7th November, 2014, the trial court issued process against the petitioners and original accused no.3 for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 141 Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioners had preferred Criminal Revision Application No.1519 of 2014 to the Sessions Court, Mumbai. By the order dtd. 1st January, 2015, the Sessions Court dismissed the revision. Thereafter the petitioners have approached this court. 3. Respondent no.1 carries on shipping business and had provided barge services to petitioner no.1 for carrying cargo from the Chartered Ship/Mother vessel to the shore for which petitioner no.1 was due to pay an amount of Rs.63,03,930/till 25th July, 2014 to respondent no.1. Petitioner no.2 is the Director of the Company, pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »