Mumbai Court April 2016 Judgments
Bonanza Commodities Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Roshanara Bhinder
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge under Section 34 of that Act dismissing an arbitration petition challenging an arbitral award. 2. The Appellant is a trading member of Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. ('MCX'), carrying on business as a commodity broker. The Respondent is a constituent of the Appellant, carrying on business of sale and purchase of commodities, under a Member Client Agreement ("MCA") with the Appellant. The Respondent executed transactions on the Exchange by using internet trading facility provided by the Appellant. The disputes between the parties arose on account of margin shortfall and failure of the Respondent to replenish MTM (Mark to Market) losses on real time basis. When the market opened on 30 March 2013, the price of silver, in which the Respondent had an open position (110 lots of the lot size of 30 kg. each) of the value of about Rs.17.67 c...
Tag this Judgment!Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. M/s. SRV Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. This Bench, on 11 April 2016 in Microsec Capital Limited Vs. Ankit Bimal Deorah, Appeal No. 537 of 2015, has observed that - 1. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties are ad-idem that aggregate the value of the claim and counterclaim in the arbitration in question is less than one crore rupees. 2. The roster/assignment with regard to Appeals before this Division Bench (Anoop Mohta and A.A. Sayed, JJ) with effect from 21.03.2016 reads thus: (C) Appeals under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act, 2015, against Order under Section 10 of the said Act. 3. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short, Commercial Courts Act, 2015) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended by The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (3 of 2016) have been brought into force with effect from 23.10.2015....
Tag this Judgment!ITC Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
P.C. 1. Leave to correct the nomenclature of respondent no.4. Correction be carried out during the course of the day. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 7.6.2016. 2. Prima facie, we are of the view that the notification would apply prospectively, i.e. from 1.4.2016 and the restriction in the notification imposed would apply to manufacture of the goods. As such, prima facie we are of the view that the restriction would apply only to such of the goods which are manufactured from 1.4.2016. 3. In that view of the matter, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) with a clarification that the said interim relief shall apply only to such of the goods which are manufactured prior to 1.4.2016. 4. Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, learned Advocate waives notice for respondent no.1. 5. Mr. D.P. Thakare, learned Addl. P.P. waives notice for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4....
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Kaustubha Dattat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Order: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. The Applicants-Original Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have taken out this Civil Application on 30 April 2015 for modification of order dated 13 April 2015, specifically clause (i) of the operative part, passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Naresh H. Patil and V.L. Achliya, JJ.) in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 182 of 2009, filed by the Petitioners, The operative part of order dated 13 April 2015, is as under: (i) By way of adinterim measure, we direct Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation, its authorities and the State Government not to sanction any proposal/project for construction of building, residential or commercial, until further orders. (ii) We direct the State, Urban Development Department to take appropriate steps to ensure that Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation complies with the provisions of Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2000 and other relevant rules, directions. (iii) We direct State and Urban D...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Uttam Vasant Mane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Tasgaon, District Sangli in Summary Criminal Case No.219/1996 decided on 21st September, 1998, thereby acquitting the accused for offences punishable under section 304A of the Indian Penal, 1860 and section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Facts in brief leading to the institution of the present case can be summarized as under:- (a) PW1 Shankar Ekanath Patil is the maternal grand-father of deceased Banti @ Sadhana Sankpal. He set the criminal law in motion on 28th February, 1996 alleging that by rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing registration No.MH-10/C-366, the respondent / accused caused the death of said Banti @ Sadhana Sankap, a child, aged about 1-1/2 years. (b) According to the prosecution case, the daughter of informant Shankar Patil came to his house for the purpose of delivery. She was accompanied by her children. On 28th February, 1996 o...
Tag this Judgment!Rishabhkumar Vs. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Roa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Shri Ghare, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 National Highways Authority of India seeks permission to withdraw Civil Application (CAM) No.4 of 2016 and seeks further permission to substitute it by another application, which he has tendered. The request is accepted. The Civil Application (CAM) No.4 of 2016 is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application which is tendered in the Court. The application is taken on record and it be registered accordingly. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( said Act for short) challenging the order dated 28.08.2015 passed under Section 34 by the learned Principal District Judge setting aside the arbitral award dated 29.08.2015. The preliminary objection is with regard to payment of Court fee on the appeal. The appellant has paid Court fee of Rs.25/- in terms of Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act ( Court Fees Act for sh...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Collector and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) is by the original plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting the application that was filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No.4. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order passed below Exhibit-1 by the Appellate Court disposing of the said appeal as having abated. The appellants-original plaintiffs had filed R.C.S. No.160 of 2003 for cancellation of sale deed dated 20/04/2003 along with a prayer for permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment dated 19/04/2004. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.160 of 2010. During pendency of said appeal, the appellants learnt on 19/10/2013 the respondent No.4 had expired on 12/08/2011. Hence, an application for bringing on record the legal representatives came to be filed. On 17/01/2014, the Appellate Court reject...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Raj Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
P.C. 1. Today at the time of hearing Anticipatory Bail Application, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the police have prepared DVD of the recorded conversation between the deceased and the applicant/accused which has taken place at around 3.40 to 3.45 p.m. on 1st April, 2016, just before the death of the deceased. The cell phone was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the last call conversation is deciphered and is made available. DVD is sealed and produced before the Court. It was opened in the presence of the prosecutor and Investigating Officer in the chamber in recess and it was heard in their presence. Thereafter the DVD was resealed and handed over to the Investigating officer. 2. This Application is moved for pre-arrest bail, as the applicant/accused is facing charges under sections 306, 323, 506(1), 504 of Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.110 of 2016 registered with Bangurnagar Police Station, Mumbai. The offence is registered at the instance of Mrs. Shob...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Incharge and Another Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Since the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur vide his Judgment and Order dt.3.12.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.81 of 2014 has awarded death sentence to the appellant/accused herein and directed him to be hanged by neck till death, present reference has been made to this Court. The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of sentence as recorded by the learned trial Judge thereby holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months respectively. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus: The accused is husband of deceased Shamshad. Deceased Isana was daughter of deceased Shamshad and the appellant. Deceased...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Prashant Sahebrao Thool
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Advocates representing the respondent-accused have filed Pursis Stamp No.1475/2016 seeking discharge. Accepting the reasons stated in the counsel note, Shri G.G. Modak, Shri R.S. Subhedar and Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocates are discharged from representing the respondent-accused. 2. Heard Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Maharashtra. 3. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case of the prosecution is : The prosecutrix-Ku. Namrata Prabhakarrao Sawadh (aged about 18 years at the time of incident) filed complaint with the police station that the accused, being neighbour of the prosecutrix and having taken land owned by father of the prosecutrix for cultivation on "batai", used to visit the house and field of the prosecutrix. That on 28-12-1999 at ab...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »