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.
M/s. Tirumala Roadways, through its Proprietor Vishnu RajmallaKalyaDap ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this notice of motion, the applicant (original petitioner) seeks condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the arbitration petition. 2. Ms.Gadre, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raises an objection at this stage that delay in filing an arbitration petition is not 30 days but much more than 30 days and thus this Court has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ) even if sufficient cause is shown. 3. Mr.Humane, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, on the other hand, would submit that a copy of the award was received by the applicant from the learned arbitrator on or after 19th September 2014. In support of this submission, learned counsel invited my attention to an envelope in which copy of the signed award was served by post by the learned arbitrator from the address Shri Satish Pathak, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2nd Floor, ...
Ganesh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Bissa, A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner -accused has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the petitioner - accused seeking permission to file on record certified copy of the judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No.10/2010. The prosecution is initiated against the petitioner on the complaint of Shrikrishna Ramlal Tarapure that the petitioner has committed theft of 300 trucks murum from agricultural land of the complainant. Shrikrishna Ramlal Tarapure had filed Special Civil Suit No.10/2010 contending that the petitioner had committed theft of about 300 truck loads of murum amounting to Rs.2,10,000/-from the agricultural land owned by him and prayed for decree for Rs.9,000,00/-. The civil suit is dismissed by the trial Court by the judgment dated 11th October, 2013. The petitioner filed application in...
Baghele Narottam Gendlal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 4. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged rejection of nomination papers filed by them for contesting election to respondent No.3Society. The nomination forms have been rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioners have not signed affidavit-B. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this is a minor defect, not of any substantial character and, therefore, could have been permitted by respondent No.2 to be removed. He also submits that in any case, the omission to sign affidavit-B was only the clerical or technical error, which could have been allowed to be corrected by respondent No.2. For these submissions, learned Counsel places reliance upon the provisions of Rule 21(2) and rule 25(2)(4)(5) of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Elections to Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short, Co-Op. Rules, 2014) and also the cases of Godha Ram s/o Karam Cha...
Lilabai Vs. Collector, Bhandara and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bhandara dated 5.10.2015 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act challenging the 'no-confidence motion' passed against the petitioner on 2.6.2015. 3. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of village Gond-Umari in the year 2012. The respondent Nos.4 to 10-members of the Gram Panchayat gave a requisition for calling the meeting for considering the 'no-confidence motion' against the petitioner to the Tahsildar, Sakoli on 27.5.2015. A special meeting for considering the 'no-confidence motion' against the petitioner was scheduled on 2.6.2015 and the motion was passed against the petitioner with the majority of seven against two. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the passing of the 'no-confidence...
Conrad D Sa and Others Vs. M/s. FandC Construction and Estate Develope ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
1. Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Ms. P. Chopdekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Abhay Neogi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice. 5. Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, took me through the record and, more particularly, the Development Agreement entered into between the appellants and the respondent no.1 for development of their properties, apart from the irrevocable power of attorney and more particularly the impugned order under challenge in this appeal to press for the grant of stay, pending the hearing of appeal on merits. 6. It was his contention that the learned Trial Court had given a convenient go-by to the cardinal principles governing the grant of temporary injunction and had ...
Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. and Others Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule in both the petitions. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 1 October 2015 in petition for special leave to appeal arising out of Diary No. 30817 of 2015 has requested this Court to dispose of S.W.P. No. 1416 of 2015 (Lodging No.), which corresponds to Writ Petition No. 2162 of 2015 within a period of six months, on its own merits and uninfluenced by the orders impugned in the said petition for special leave to appeal. 3. In these petitions, we are concerned with property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8 and 190/9 (pt.) situated at Pant Nagar Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400 075, which is admittedly owned by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), a statutory authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act). There is however, a dispute between the contesting parties as to whether the ...
Anil Raghunath Dhiwar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune convicting the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (For short 'IPC') and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant was also charged of offences punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, Section 504 of the IPC and Section 506 of the IPC, but of the said offences, he was acquitted. 2. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court, in brief, be stated thus : The prosecutrix, who is the daughter of the brother of the appellant's wife, was, at the material time, aged 14 years. On 26/01/2012, she had come to reside with her aunt i.e. wife of the appellant, who used to reside with the appellant, her two sons -Rohan (PW2) Shubham, - and a daughter - Priyanka. In the afternoon, the prosecutrix, after doing the household work, was sleeping on the mezzanine ...
Bansidhar @ Nandkumar Shivshankar Shukla Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard respective Counsel. 2. The applicant takes an exception to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kallam, in Regular Criminal Case No.70 of 2003 on 25th April, 2003, ordering issuance of process against him for offences punishable under sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order is further confirmed by 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad vide order dated 24th August, 2005, passed in Criminal Revision Application No.57 of 2003. Thus, the present application. 3. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering issuance of process against the applicant-accused depicts that he has neither applied his mind to the contents of the complaint, verification, and documentary evidence as is brought on record while dealing with the complaint. The order sans reasons and satisfaction about the ingredients of the offence under sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons are the live link, whic...
M/s. Universals Enterprises Vs. Deluxe Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Heard, entertained and decided finally by consent of the parties. 2. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as `Arbitration Act') is filed by the Appellant, in whose Section 9 Petition the learned Single Judge by order 28.01.2016 has not granted any ad-interim relief, though specifically prayed. The impugned order reads as under: 1. ... 2. This petition is under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for an order of injunction restraining the respondent from selling, disposing of or creating third party right in respect of flats in the building constructed on the plot bearing C.S. No. 136(part), 2/136 (part) and 110 (part) of Lower Parel Division at Manjrekar Marg, Gandhi Nagar, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent executed the Agreement dated 29th December, 2008 on 100 Rupees stamp paper agreed to provide six flats. He further ...
Mary Pereira and Others Vs. Anant Mahadev Vengurlekar @ Babi Vengurlek ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners/original plaintiffs are challenging the order dated 26.02.2016 below Exhibit 95-D passed by the Adhoc Senior Civil Judge at Vasco in Regular Civil Suit No.12/2010/A. By the impugned order, the application (Exhibit 95-D) for placing reliance on the documents as set out in paragraph 1, serial Nos.(a) to (d) of the application has been refused. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioners had earlier sought eviction of the respondents by filing proceedings under the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Control Act, for short), in which the respondents had raised an objection that the subject building of which the suit premises form part, were not more than 15 years old and as such, the proceedings before the Rent Controller, were not competent. Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »