Mumbai Court March 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.
Rajesh Sharad Mapara and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra through Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
A.A. Sayed, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners have impugned the Notification issued by Respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra dated 26 June 2015. By the impugned Notification, in exercise of powers conferred under subsections (1), (1A) and (2) of section 341A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), the Government of Maharashtra has specified the local area of village Panchayat of Pali in Raigad District to be a transitional area (an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area) and to constitute a Nagar Panchayat by the name Pali Nagar Panchayat for the said transitional area. The Petitioners have also impugned the consequent Notification dated 26 June 2015, appointing Respondent No.3-Tahsildar as Administrator to exercise all powers and d...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Artson Engineering Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Admit. The parties have filed short synopsis and written notes of submissions. The appeal is taken up for final hearing, by consent. 2. The appellant/original respondent has preferred this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act ) against Judgment and Order pronounced by a learned single Judge of this Court on 30-10-2015, whereby the Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Act is partly allowed and maintained the other claims in the following words: 133. I, therefore, pass the following order: (a) The impugned award dated 30th June, 2005 is set aside insofar as claim nos.(d) and (g) are concerned. (b) Interest awarded on the security deposit is set aside. (c) Interest at the rate of 18% per annum awarded by the learned arbitrator is reduced to 12% per annum which shall be payable for the period as awarded by the learned arbitrator. (d) Interest awarded on claim nos.(d) and (g) is set aside. (e...
Rashid @ Jagga Shaukat Hussein Sayyed Vs. The Commissioner of Police, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
Oral Judgment (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of detention under Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ('M.P.D.A. Act' for short) passed against the detenu. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 2640 of 2015 challenging the validity of the very same detention order. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11.8.2015 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP. The present petition is on the footing that fresh and new grounds of attack against the order of detention have been raised in the present petition and that successive petition on such fresh and new grounds is not barred on the principle of res-judicata or constructive res-judicata and ...
Way2Wealth Brokers Pvt Ltd. Vs. C.B. Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Appellants (original Respondents) have filed the present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act of 1996) against judgment dated 12 September 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge as the Arbitration Petition, under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, has been allowed and thereby directed the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal under the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE Regulations) to decide the delay condonation Application and as the Respondent/original Petitioner also expressed willingness to approach to Appellate Court/Forum as his Appeal was dismissed/rejected solely on the ground of limitation without deciding the merits of the matter. 2. The Appellants' case is as under: On 20 September 2011, an Award was passed by the panel of Arbitrators (Arbitral Tribunal) rejecting the claim of the Respondent. On 29 September 2011, the Respondent received Award dated 20 September 2011. On 14 October...
Abhaykumar Krishna Kamat Vs. Rajnish Udaykar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Appeal, the Appellant/Original Complainant is taking exception to the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2012, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco da Gama, in Criminal Case No.94/OA/NIA/2011/C by which the Respondent-Accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ('Act', for short). 2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the Appellant that on account of friendship, the Appellant had accommodated the Respondent in the sum of Rs.1,70,000/-. In the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, the Appellant has set out the details of the payment which were made to the Respondent from time to time from December 2010 to May 2011. The Appellant further claimed that towards repayment of the said amount, the Respondent had issued a cheque bearing No.231641 dated 15.09.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- in favour of the Appellant. The said cheque was drawn on Centurion Bank Ltd., Vasco da Ga...
Jorge Alexandre Cruz Lourenco Vs. Lucas Fernandes (since deceased) and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith' Heard finally by consent. 2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the orders, which are, the order dated 09.09.2015 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. t45/20L5 passed by the first Additional Senior Civil Judge, Margao, thereby granting temporary mandatory injunction to the respondents and second, the order dated 0L.12.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 6O/20L5 by District Judge-1, South Goa, Margao, thereby confirming the order granting temporary mandatory injunction. 3. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is a dispute between the landlord and the tenants in respect of right of way or access shown in the plan annexed to the plaint. It is the contention of the respondents-original plaintiffs that the access (hereinafter called the "suit access") to their tenanted premises has been blocked by the petitioner by means of a gate erected by him and kept under locked con...
Dr. Narender Omprakash Bansal Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary, Medi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (D.H. Waghela, CJ.) 1. The petition is admitted and service of Rule is waived by learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Heard, by consent, the petition is disposed of. 3. The petitioner is a Professor of Cardiology and Head of Department in Grant Medical College and Sir J.J.Group of Hospital. He has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 16th October 2015 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (`Tribunal') in Original Application No.444 of 2015 and has also prayed to quash the order dated 29th May 2016 of his suspension from service. Before partly allowing the Original Application by the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded in the impugned order as under: "54. The fact that the suspension is certainly the matter of hardship. In the background that in present case though four months have passed to the suspension, chargesheet is not served on the applicant and even review as regards continuation or revocation...
Harsh Mander Vs. Amit Anilchandra Shah and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
1. By this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.12.2014, discharging the respondent no.1, one of the accused in Sessions Cases Nos. 177 of 2013, 178 of 2013, 577 of 2013 and 312 of 2014 pending in the Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay at Mumbai. The applicant has also sought to direct an independent agency to investigate the circumstances under which Rubabuddin Shaikh, the applicant in Criminal Revision Application (St.) No. 413 of 2015, has approached this Court for withdrawal of the said revision application and the application for condonation of delay. 2. The brief facts necessary to decide this application are as under: The respondent no.1 had filed a discharge application in the aforestated sessions cases. By order dated 30.12.2014, the learned Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay allowed the discharge application and consequently discharged him of the offences u/s. 120B, 364, 365, 368, 341, 342, 384, 302, 218 rw/...
Essel Propack Ltd. Vs. Essel Kitchenware Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This is a Notice of Motion for a Receiver and injunctions in an action for trade mark infringement and passing off. 2. The Suit and the Notice of Motion have had something of a convoluted litigation history. The Suit was filed in 2010. First, the Plaintiff filed a Petition for leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent to combine the cause of action in passing off with the cause of action in infringement. That Petition was contested (to the stage, it seems, of an Affidavit in Rejoinder). Leave was ultimately granted on a no-finding basis on 23rd March 2010. The Plaint was then amended. Later, when an application for ad-interim reliefs was moved, a plea of want of jurisdiction was taken. In consequence, a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) was framed on 2nd December 2011. The matter then came up on 15th February 2013. The Plaintiff desired to lead evidence and, accordingly, documents were allowed to be filed and were marke...
Hameed Jaffar Ahmed Ibrabim Mandeel Vs. Farhat Mehdi Mandil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. This is a Petition for revocation of a probate granted to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of a Will dated 19th September 2003 made by one Mr. Mendi Mandil ( Mehdi ), who died in Mumbai on 3rd October 2003. The 1st Respondent to this revocation Petition is Mehdi s widow, Farhat, and the 2nd Respondent is their daughter Mehjabeen. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were executors appointed under that Will. It is they who sought and obtained the probate. 3. Respondent Nos. 5 to 15 support the Petitioner. They all claim to be the heirs according to Shia Law of Inheritance. The Petitioner is Mehdi s brother. 4. Affidavits in Reply and Rejoinder have been filed. To one of these Affidavits, filed by Respondent No. 8, I will return shortly at the invitation of Ms. Sidhwa, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, since I believe she is right when she says that this Affidavit is thoroughly irresponsible. 5. However, the point that Mr. Bobade for the Petitioner canvasses is that u...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »