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.
Phoenix Arc Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondents. 2. On the basis of the Application made by the Petitioner under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short "the said Act"), the learned District Magistrate, Raigad at Alibag passed an order allowing the Application. The operative part of the said order reads thus: "The application is allowed. The Respondent failed to repay the loan to the applicant Bank and therefore, as per section 14(1) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, I hereby order to take possession of secured assets viz. Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, in the building known as "Kailash Apartment" constructed on the Plot No.02 and 4, in the Sector-12, situated at near Petrol Pump, New Panvel, Dist-Raigad and hand over the possession of the secured assets/mortgaged property to the ...
M/s. M.R. Mutha, Engineers and contractors Vs. The State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 113/1996, which was pending in the Court of Joint District Judge, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 296/1994, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. The suit was filed by present respondent, State Government against the appellant, contractor for relief of declaration that the Arbitrator appointed by present appellant had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and relief of injunction was prayed to prevent the Arbitrator from adjudicating the matter. Both the sides are heard. The matter is governed by provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (Old Act). 2. It is the case of Government, plaintiff that the work allotted to present appellant was completed on 7.11.1986 and the final bill was paid on 15.7.1988. It is contended that as per Clause Nos. 54 and 55 of terms and conditions of the contract, it was nece...
Joaquim Milagres Joao Fernandes Vs. State and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. It is seen from the impugned orders that both the authorities below have not read the report of the Range Forest Officer in ts correct perspective. His report dated 30/10/2014 nowhere states that the condition of the tree is ruinous or such as to indicate that it is likely to fall down. Report only states that because some electric lines are passing from below the tree, it may be dangerous to life and property. Report suggests that passing of electric lines from below the tree is the reason for making threat to life and property. It is clear that the tree by itself is not in dangerous or ruinous condition. The requirement of exercise of power under section 12-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 is that the tree in question must be in a ruinous state or its branches should be in a ruinous state or the tree should be in such a condition that it is likely to fall and ther...
Bosco D'Souza Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. At the outset, at the request of Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent no.5 stands deleted at the risk of the petitioner. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 4. Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 5. The above petition inter-alia takes exception to the non implementation of the order dated 18.01.2016 whereby the electric connection released to the petitioner in terms of Section 94-A of the Public Health Act was not complied with. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and during the course of the hearing Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has po...
M/s. Ruchitra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition, Original Accused Nos.1 to 4 are challenging the process issued against them for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of IPC by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palghar in C.C. No.169/SW/2013. They had earlier challenged this order by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.22 of 2014 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar. However, their Revision Application came to be dismissed by the Judgment and Order dated 26th August 2014. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the entire dispute involved in the present case is purely and simply of a civil nature. The allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, they do not constitute any of the ingredients of the offence of cheating. According to him, initially, even the Trial Court also, at the first blush, has observed that...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›