Mumbai Court April 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.
Arun Vs. Dr. Panjabrao Agricultural University Akola and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Advocate Shri Deshpande submits that caste claim of petitioner as belonging to 'Halbi' - Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by respondent no.4 - Scrutiny Committee on 7th of November, 2003 only on the ground that Affinity Test is not satisfied. He has taken us through entire order and also through the vigilance report. He points out that old documents conclusively show the caste as 'Halbi' but those documents have been ignored. Our attention is also drawn to the judgment dated 11th of January, 2016 in Writ Petition No.3751 of 2003 wherein real brother of petitioner, by name Atul, has been given validity by this Court. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has attempted to assist the Court by using court records. He points out that as Vigilance Authorities conducted home enquiry and noted that traits and customs were different, Scrutiny Committee has independently come to conclusion that though documents show caste as 'Halbi', petitioner do...
Carlos Tavora Vs. M/s. Boshan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
1. Heard Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Shivan Desai, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2. 2. The dispute centers around even in this appeal relating to the exhaust chimney installed in the terrace of the premises in question. 3. A brief narration of the facts would be necessary to better appreciate the matter in controversy between the parties and to arrive at a conclusive finding on the issue at large arising for determination in this appeal at the instance of the original defendant. The learned trial Court had disallowed the application of the appellant seeking the relief of variation of the injunction order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pursuant to which he had sought the protection of the learned trial Court to permit him to replace the blower and the chimney carving a case that although there was an earlier order passed in...
Manohar s/o Balwantrao Wankhede (dead) Legal Representatives Vs. Zilla ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Petitioner, now dead, is prosecuting present matter through his legal heirs. Grievance is about withholding amount of Rs.1,71,171/- from his Pension and Gratuity. Submission is, after retirement of petitioner on 28th of February, 2001, in breach of principles of natural justice for alleged misconducts, which have taken place more than four years before the date of superannuation, the punishment has been imposed. 2. Advocate Shri Saboo submits that this Court issued notice in the matter on 26th of April, 2004 and interim relief was granted while issuing Rule on 4th of November, 2004. However, in the meanwhile a impugned recovery was completed. 3. Respondent - Zilla Parishad filed submissions opposing the petition and along with the submission, for the first time, a copy of order dated 12th of November, 2001 pointing out the recovery was produced. He submits that said order was not within knowledge of petitioner and hence after receipt of this r...
Unitech Texmech Private Limited Vs. ATE Enterprises Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ) the petitioner has impugned an arbitral award dated 7th May, 2015 made by the learned arbitrator allowing some of the claims made by the respondent and rejecting the counter claims made by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court and to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the parties have agreed to the jurisdiction of the Court of law at Pune under clause 8 of the Selling Agency Agreement entered into between the parties on 22nd January, 2010. In view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent both the parties have addressed this Court on the issue as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition. 3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of decidin...
Kailash Manohar Wankhade Vs. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Advocate Shri Sonbhadre for petitioner, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Advocate Shri Saboo for respondent no.3. 2. The challenge in Writ Petition is to order of respondent no.2 - Scrutiny Committee dated 10th of February, 2003 invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Thakur' - Scheduled Tribe. Shri Sonbhadre, upon instructions, has stated that the petitioner is only seeking protection of his employment and he relies upon Full Bench judgment of this Court reported at 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Mah.) 3. We have accordingly heard respective counsel. Petitioner has joined employment as per appointment order dated 12th of March, 1999 and is in service even today. Adverse order of Scrutiny Committee stayed by this Court on 16th of July, 2003. 4. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee shows that petitioner has relied upon document of School Leaving Certificate...
Nitesh Shashikant Khobragade Vs. Anil Marotrao Khobragade and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notice for final disposal issued on 04.01.2016 the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 2. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with consent of parties. 3. This appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the said Act) challenging the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Probate Petition No. 6 of 2012 thereby dismissing the proceedings for issuance of probate and granting liberty to the appellant to have the claim adjudicated before the competent Civil Court. 4. Facts in brief are that the appellant claims entitlement to a plot of land alongwith property constructed thereon on the basis of will executed by Smt Manoramabai Khobragade and Shri Marotrao Khobragade on 24.09.2003. According to the appellant he had been named as executor in the said will. The appellant therefore filed a petition under Section 276 of the said Act for grant of probat...
Pratap Pednekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
P.C. 1. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 have compounded the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has filed the Consent Terms dated 16.3.2016. As per the Consent Terms all the criminal complaints have been compounded which are the subject-matter in the aforesaid writ petitions and the petitioner herein had agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent No.2. The record further discloses that the respondent no.2 has already received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. He has also executed a receipt to that effect dated 16.3.2016 which is annexed to the present petitions. 2. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalam H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663 this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the compounded amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from 23.3.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner today has produced the receipt dated 4.4.2016 ...
Dr. Ashok Trivikram Wagle and Another Vs. Estate Manager-5 and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the Appellate Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (For short MHADA) in Appeal No.8 of 2013. By the said order, the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by the Competent Authority, MHADA evicting the Petitioner came to be confirmed. 3. The factual matrix involved in the above Petition can be stated thus: The subject matter of the above Petition and the proceedings before the Authorities below are premises being Office Building No.4 having ground floor structure admeasuring 991 sq.ft. at Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East) (MHADA Colony) with appurtenant land admeasuring 365.85 sq.mtrs. in a settlement of MHADA. The said premises were rented out to the Petitioner who at the relevant time was practicing as a doctor for the purpose of dispensary and residence in the year 1...
Gyanraj Potiraj Nadar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
P.D. Naik, J. 1. This is an application preferred by the Applicant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code') seeking quashing of, by consent, first information report ('FIR') dated 4th September 2015. The said FIR was registered with Dharavi Police Station vide CR No.421 of 2015 under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC') at the instance of Respondent no.2. The Respondent no.3 is the alleged victim of the alleged offence. She was minor at the time of alleged incident and the FIR was lodged at the instance of Respondent no.2 who is her father. 2. Respondent no.2 as well as Respondent no.3 (who has presently attained the age of majority), have filed affidavits dated 3rd March 2016 and 1st April 2016 respectively before this Court stating that they have no objection for allowing the present application preferred by the Applicant for quashing the FIR bearing CR No.421 of 2015 registered with Dharavi Police Station. 3. Brief facts, as alleged in the FIR, are as follo...
M/s. Dosti Corporation and Another Vs. Sea Flama Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
1. By consent of parties, both these appeals were heard together finally at the admission stage and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Appeal from Order No.117 of 2016 filed by the original defendant no.1 inter alia challenging the order dated 27th July, 2015 passed by the learned trial judge in the Notice of Motion No.2672 of 2014 which was filed by the respondent no.1 herein (original plaintiff) and thereby granting temporary injunction against defendant nos. 1 and 2 restraining them from putting up any construction work upon or over the suit properties till disposal of the suit and further restraining them from using any FSI as available in the suit properties or part thereof till disposal of the suit. 3. Appeal from Order (St) No.23483 of 2015 has been filed by the original defendant no.1 challenging the said order dated 27th July, 2015. Respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 in these appeals were the original defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively in the notice of motion. For the sak...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »